Leong v. Defuria

138 A.D.3d 937, 28 N.Y.S.3d 621
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 20, 2016
Docket2015-06423
StatusPublished

This text of 138 A.D.3d 937 (Leong v. Defuria) 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
Leong v. Defuria, 138 A.D.3d 937, 28 N.Y.S.3d 621 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff Simon Leong appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Weiss, J.), dated May 7, 2015, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismiss *938 ing the complaint insofar as asserted by him 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 reversed, on the law, with costs, and the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted by the plaintiff Simon Leong is denied.

The defendant met his prima facie burden of showing that the appellant 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 evidence establishing, prima facie, that the alleged injury to the cervical region of the appellant’s spine did not constitute a serious injury under 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 appellant raised a triable issue of fact as to whether he sustained a serious injury to the cervical region of his spine (see Perl v Meher, 18 NY3d 208, 218-219 [2011]). Thus, the Supreme Court should have denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted by him.

Balkin, J.P., Sgroi, Cohen and Duffy, 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)
138 A.D.3d 937, 28 N.Y.S.3d 621, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/leong-v-defuria-nyappdiv-2016.