Cairo v. Awan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cairo v. Awan

89 A.D.3d 976, 933 N.Y.2d 368

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 22, 2011·Published

Opinion

The appellants 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 [2002]; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957 [1992]). The plaintiff alleged, inter alia, that the cervical region of his spine sustained certain injuries as a result of the subject accident. The appellants established, prima facie, inter alia, that those alleged injuries were not caused by the subject accident (see Pommells v Perez, 4 NY3d 566, 579 [2005]; Jilani v Palmer, 83 AD3d 786, 787 [2011]).

In opposition to the appellants’ motion the plaintiff submitted competent medical evidence raising a triable issue of fact as to whether the alleged injuries to the cervical region of his spine were caused by the accident (see Jaramillo v Lobo, 32 AD3d 417 [2006]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the appellants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them. Dillon, J.P., Dickerson, Leventhal, Austin and Miller, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

The appellants 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 [2002]; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957 [1992]). The plaintiff alleged, inter alia, that the cervical region of his spine sustained certain injuries as a result of the subject accident. The appellants established, prima facie, inter alia, that those alleged injuries were not caused by the subject accident (see Pommells v Perez, 4 NY3d 566, 579 [2005]; Jilani v Palmer, 83 AD3d 786, 787 [2011]).

In opposition to the appellants’ motion the plaintiff submitted competent medical evidence raising a triable issue of fact as to whether the alleged injuries to the cervical region of his spine were caused by the accident (see Jaramillo v Lobo, 32 AD3d 417 [2006]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the appellants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them. Dillon, J.P., Dickerson, Leventhal, Austin and Miller, JJ., concur.

Cairo v. Awan, 89 A.D.3d 976, 933 N.Y.2d 368 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

89 A.D.3d 976 (Cairo v. Awan) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related