Hiller v. Jetex Servs., Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided July 29, 2026·No. 2024-10464·Published

Opinion

Hiller v Jetex Servs., Inc. - 2026 NY Slip Op 04753
skip to main content

It appears you are using Adblock. Please disable Adblock to best experience our website.

Law Reporting
Bureau
Thomas J.K. Smith, State Reporter

Hiller v Jetex Servs., Inc.

2026 NY Slip Op 04753

July 29, 2026

Appellate Division, Second Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Dovid Hiller, et al., respondents,

v

Jetex Services, Inc., et al., appellants.

Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

Decided on July 29, 2026

2024-10464, (Index No. 715116/22)

Lara J. Genovesi, J.P.

Linda Christopher

Barry E. Warhit

Lourdes M. Ventura, JJ.

Scahill Law Group, P.C., Bethpage, NY (Keri A. Wehrheim and Gerard Ferrara of counsel), for appellants.

Zemsky and Salomon, P.C., Hempstead, NY (Thomas G. Grogan of counsel), for respondents.

[*1]

DECISION & ORDER

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Ulysses B. Leverett, J.), dated July 24, 2024. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them by the plaintiff Dovid Hiller on the ground that he 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 affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiffs commenced this action to recover damages for personal injuries that they allegedly sustained in a motor vehicle accident. The defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them by the plaintiff Dovid Hiller on the ground that he did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d) as a result of the accident. In an order dated July 24, 2024, the Supreme Court, inter alia, denied the defendants' motion. The defendants appeal.

The defendants' established, prima facie, that the alleged injuries to the cervical and lumbar regions of Hiller's spine were not caused by the accident (see Amirova v JND Trans, Inc., 206 AD3d 601, 602; Gash v Miller, 177 AD3d 950; Gouvea v Lesende, 127 AD3d 811). However, in opposition, the plaintiffs raised a triable issue of fact as to whether Hiller's injuries were caused by the accident (see Perl v Meher, 18 NY3d 208; Polight v Martin, 237 AD3d 990, 992; Owens v ELRAC, LLC, 213 AD3d 684, 685).

The defendants failed to submit competent medical evidence establishing, prima facie, that Hiller did not sustain a serious injury to the cervical and lumbar regions of his spine under either the permanent consequential limitation of use or significant limitation of use categories of Insurance Law § 5102(d). The defendants' expert found significant limitations in the range of motion of the cervical and lumbar regions of Hiller's spine and failed to adequately explain and substantiate, with competent medical evidence, his belief that the limitations were self-imposed (see Matveieva v Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 212 AD3d 726, 726; Mondesir v Ahmed, 175 AD3d 1291; [*2]Singleton v F & R Royal, Inc., 166 AD3d 837, 838).

The defendants' remaining contentions either are without merit or need not be reached in light of our determination.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them by Hiller on the ground that he did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d) as a result of the subject accident.

GENOVESI, J.P., CHRISTOPHER, WARHIT and VENTURA, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Darrell M. Joseph

Clerk of the Court

Court Decisions

All Court Decisions Official Reports Service Bound Volumes Decision Search

Resources

RSS Feeds Style Manual Citation Tools Opinion Formatting & Privacy Guidelines Opinion Selection Criteria Legal Research Portal Site Index

About

About the Law Reporting Bureau About our Operations Contact Us Twitter

Quick Contact Info

17 Lodge Street

Albany, NY 12207

Phone: (518) 453-6900

Links to or from other sites do not signify endorsement or relationship with them.

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

Hiller v. Jetex Servs., Inc., (N.Y. Ct. App. 2026).

Hiller v. Jetex Servs., Inc. (Hiller v. Jetex Servs., Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Perl v. Meher
960 N.E.2d 424 (New York Court of Appeals, 2011)
Gouvea v. Lesende
127 A.D.3d 811 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Matveieva v. Metropolitan Transp. Auth.
183 N.Y.S.3d 120 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2023)
Owens v. Elrac, LLC
184 N.Y.S.3d 62 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2023)