Ortiz v. Lewkowics

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ortiz v. Lewkowics

133 A.D.3d 834, 19 N.Y.S.3d 754

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 25, 2015·No. 2015-02568·Published

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Minardo, J.), dated January 22, 2015, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that neither of the plaintiffs sustained 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 defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that the plaintiffs 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]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, regardless of the sufficiency of the plaintiffs’ opposing papers (see Encarnacion v Smith, 70 AD3d 628, 630 [2010]; Alvarez v Dematas, 65 AD3d 598, 600 [2009]). Balkin, J.P., Chambers, Cohen and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Minardo, J.), dated January 22, 2015, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that neither of the plaintiffs sustained 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 defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that the plaintiffs 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]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, regardless of the sufficiency of the plaintiffs’ opposing papers (see Encarnacion v Smith, 70 AD3d 628, 630 [2010]; Alvarez v Dematas, 65 AD3d 598, 600 [2009]). Balkin, J.P., Chambers, Cohen and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.

Ortiz v. Lewkowics, 133 A.D.3d 834, 19 N.Y.S.3d 754 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

133 A.D.3d 834 (Ortiz v. Lewkowics) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related