Pierre-Paul v. Price

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pierre-Paul v. Price

2017 NY Slip Op 1721, 148 A.D.3d 847, 48 N.Y.S.3d 745

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMarch 8, 2017

Docket2016-00611

StatusPublished

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 1721 (Pierre-Paul v. Price) 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

Pierre-Paul v. Price, 2017 NY Slip Op 1721, 148 A.D.3d 847, 48 N.Y.S.3d 745 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover dam *848 ages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Capetola, J.), entered November 16, 2015, which denied their 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.

In support of their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, 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 injuries 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 he sustained a serious injury to the lumbar region of his spine (see Perl v Meher, 18 NY3d 208, 218-219 [2011]).

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

Rivera, J.P., Chambers, Roman and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover dam *848 ages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Capetola, J.), entered November 16, 2015, which denied their 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.

In support of their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, 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 injuries 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 he sustained a serious injury to the lumbar region of his spine (see Perl v Meher, 18 NY3d 208, 218-219 [2011]).

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

Rivera, J.P., Chambers, Roman and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 1721, 148 A.D.3d 847, 48 N.Y.S.3d 745, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pierre-paul-v-price-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack