Datikashvili v. Vijungco

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Datikashvili v. Vijungco

121 A.D.3d 637, 993 N.Y.S.2d 352

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedOctober 1, 2014

Docket2013-10498

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 121 A.D.3d 637 (Datikashvili v. Vijungco) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Datikashvili v. Vijungco, 121 A.D.3d 637, 993 N.Y.S.2d 352 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

*638 In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Golia, J.), dated September 9, 2013, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff Irma Datikashvili 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 defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.

The defendant met his prima facie burden of showing that the plaintiff Irma Datikashvili 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 defendant submitted competent medical evidence establishing, prima facie, that the alleged injuries to the cervical region of Datikashvili’s spine and to her right shoulder did not constitute serious injuries under either the permanent consequential limitation of use category or the significant limitation of use category of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see Staff v Yshua, 59 AD3d 614 [2009]), and that, in any event, these alleged injuries were not caused by the subject accident (see Jilani v Palmer, 83 AD3d 786, 787 [2011]).

In opposition, however, the plaintiffs raised triable issues of fact as to whether Datikashvili sustained serious injuries to the cervical region of her spine and her right shoulder as a result of the subject accident (see Perl v Meher, 18 NY3d 208, 218-219 [2011]). Therefore, the Supreme Court should have denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Dillon, J.E, Dickerson, Roman and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

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

*638 In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Golia, J.), dated September 9, 2013, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff Irma Datikashvili 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 defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.

The defendant met his prima facie burden of showing that the plaintiff Irma Datikashvili 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 defendant submitted competent medical evidence establishing, prima facie, that the alleged injuries to the cervical region of Datikashvili’s spine and to her right shoulder did not constitute serious injuries under either the permanent consequential limitation of use category or the significant limitation of use category of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see Staff v Yshua, 59 AD3d 614 [2009]), and that, in any event, these alleged injuries were not caused by the subject accident (see Jilani v Palmer, 83 AD3d 786, 787 [2011]).

In opposition, however, the plaintiffs raised triable issues of fact as to whether Datikashvili sustained serious injuries to the cervical region of her spine and her right shoulder as a result of the subject accident (see Perl v Meher, 18 NY3d 208, 218-219 [2011]). Therefore, the Supreme Court should have denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Dillon, J.E, Dickerson, Roman and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

121 A.D.3d 637, 993 N.Y.S.2d 352, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/datikashvili-v-vijungco-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack