Filsaime v. Nyarko-Brentuo

111 A.D.3d 598, 974 N.Y.S.2d 280
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 6, 2013
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 111 A.D.3d 598 (Filsaime v. Nyarko-Brentuo) 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
Filsaime v. Nyarko-Brentuo, 111 A.D.3d 598, 974 N.Y.S.2d 280 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Jaeger, J.), dated July 16, 2012, 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 [2002]; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957 [1992]). The defendants submitted competent medical evidence establishing, prima facie, that the alleged injuries to the cervical and lumbar regions of the plaintiffs spine did not constitute serious injuries under either the permanent consequential limitation of use or significant [599]*599limitation of use categories of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see Staff v Yshua, 59 AD3d 614 [2009]).

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, 215-218 [2011]). Thus, the Supreme Court should have denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Mastro, J.E, Balkin, Sgroi and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Estrada v. Selman
130 A.D.3d 562 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
111 A.D.3d 598, 974 N.Y.S.2d 280, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/filsaime-v-nyarko-brentuo-nyappdiv-2013.