| Maimone v Lutrario |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 06577 |
| Decided on August 19, 2015 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. |
Decided on August 19, 2015 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
RUTH C. BALKIN, J.P.
LEONARD B. AUSTIN
COLLEEN D. DUFFY
BETSY BARROS, JJ.
2014-09530
(Index No. 501381/12)
v
Kristen A. Lutrario, et al., respondents.
Blank & Star, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Helene Blank of counsel), for appellant.
Kelly, Rode & Kelly, LLP, Mineola, N.Y. (Susan M. Ulrich of counsel), for respondents.
DECISION & ORDER
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rothenberg, J.), dated August 1, 2014, which granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d) as a result of the subject accident.
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.
The defendants met their prima facie burden of showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d) as a result of the subject accident (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957). The defendants submitted competent medical evidence establishing, prima facie, that the alleged injuries to the cervical and lumbar regions of the plaintiff's spine did not constitute serious injuries under the permanent consequential limitation of use or significant limitation of use categories of Insurance Law § 5102(d) (see Staff v Yshua, 59 AD3d 614).
In opposition, however, the plaintiff raised triable issues of fact as to whether he sustained serious injuries to the cervical and lumbar regions of his spine (see Perl v Meher, 18 NY3d 208, 218-219). Therefore, the Supreme Court should have denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
BALKIN, J.P., AUSTIN, DUFFY and BARROS, JJ., concur.
ENTER:Aprilanne Agostino
Clerk of the Court