Heeja Yoon-Jeong v. Bhandari

2017 NY Slip Op 5426, 152 A.D.3d 502, 54 N.Y.S.3d 870
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJuly 5, 2017
Docket2016-07453
StatusPublished

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 5426 (Heeja Yoon-Jeong v. Bhandari) 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
Heeja Yoon-Jeong v. Bhandari, 2017 NY Slip Op 5426, 152 A.D.3d 502, 54 N.Y.S.3d 870 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Weiss, J.), entered June 6, 2016, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the *503 complaint on the ground that she 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 injury to the plaintiff’s left shoulder did not constitute a serious injury under either the permanent consequential limitation of use or significant limitation of use categories of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see Staff v Yshua, 59 AD3d 614 [2009]).

In opposition, however, the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact as to whether she sustained a serious injury to her left shoulder under the permanent consequential limitation of use and significant limitation of use categories of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see Perl v Meher, 18 NY3d 208, 218-219 [2011]).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Mastro, J.P., Hall, Cohen and Iannacci, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Toure v. Avis Rent a Car Systems, Inc.
774 N.E.2d 1197 (New York Court of Appeals, 2002)
Perl v. Meher
960 N.E.2d 424 (New York Court of Appeals, 2011)
Gaddy v. Eyler
591 N.E.2d 1176 (New York Court of Appeals, 1992)
Staff v. Mair Yshua
59 A.D.3d 614 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2017 NY Slip Op 5426, 152 A.D.3d 502, 54 N.Y.S.3d 870, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/heeja-yoon-jeong-v-bhandari-nyappdiv-2017.