Mendez v. Joseph
This text of 2025 NY Slip Op 04645 (Mendez v. Joseph) 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.
Opinion
Mendez v Joseph (2025 NY Slip Op 04645)
| Mendez v Joseph |
| 2025 NY Slip Op 04645 |
| Decided on August 13, 2025 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. |
Decided on August 13, 2025 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
MARK C. DILLON, J.P.
DEBORAH A. DOWLING
BARRY E. WARHIT
LAURENCE L. LOVE, JJ.
2023-06435
(Index No. 702853/20)
v
Thomas Joseph, et al., appellants.
Gallo Vitucci Klar LLP, New York, NY (Sean R. Hutchinson of counsel), for appellants.
Elefterakis, Elefterakis & Panek, New York, NY (Harris J. Zakarin of counsel), for respondent.
DECISION & ORDER
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Timothy J. Dufficy, J.), dated May 8, 2023. The order denied 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 affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff commenced this action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries that she allegedly sustained in a motor vehicle accident. The defendants moved 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 accident. In an order dated May 8, 2023, the Supreme Court denied the motion. The defendants appeal.
The defendants failed to meet 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 accident (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., Inc., 98 NY2d 345; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957). The defendants failed to submit competent medical evidence establishing, prima facie, that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury to her head under the permanent consequential limitation of use or significant limitation of use categories of Insurance Law § 5102(d) (see Zennia v Ramsey, 208 AD3d 735, 735; Melika v Caraballo, 187 AD3d 1173, 1173; Adams v Dura Cab Corp., 152 AD3d 634, 635).
The parties' remaining contentions either are not properly before this Court or need not be addressed in light of our determination.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied 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 accident
DILLON, J.P., DOWLING, WARHIT and LOVE, JJ., concur.
ENTER:Darrell M. Joseph
Clerk of the Court
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2025 NY Slip Op 04645, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mendez-v-joseph-nyappdiv-2025.