Pizzo v. Lustig
Opinion
It appears you are using Adblock. Please disable Adblock to best experience our website.
Bureau Thomas J.K. Smith, State Reporter
Pizzo v Lustig
2026 NY Slip Op 04443
July 15, 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.
Anthony Pizzo, appellant,
v
Nachi Lustig, respondent.
Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Decided on July 15, 2026
2021-08714, (Index No. 508087/18)
Lara J. Genovesi, J.P.
Linda Christopher
Barry E. Warhit
Lourdes M. Ventura, JJ.
Bogoraz Law Group, P.C. (Pollack, Pollack, Isaac & DeCicco, LLP, New York, NY [Brian J. Isaac, Gregory Freedman, Joshua Block, and Jillian Rosen], of counsel), for appellant.
Cuomo LLC, Mineola, NY (Matthew A. Cuomo of counsel), for respondent.
DECISION & ORDER
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Peter P. Sweeney, J.), dated November 8, 2021. The order denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the issue of whether the plaintiff 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 plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for personal injuries that he allegedly sustained in a motor vehicle accident. The plaintiff moved for summary judgment on the issue of whether he sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d) as a result of the subject accident. In an order dated November 8, 2021, the Supreme Court denied the motion. The plaintiff appeals.
"A plaintiff moving for summary judgment on the issue of serious injury must establish, prima facie, that he or she sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d) and that the serious injury was causally related to the accident" (Degachi v Faridi, 215 AD3d 733, 733-34 [alteration and internal quotation marks omitted]). Contrary to the defendant's contentions, the plaintiff established, prima facie, that he sustained a serious injury to the cervical and lumbar regions of his spine under the permanent consequential limitation of use and significant limitation of use categories. However, the plaintiff failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact as to whether the injuries to his spine were caused or exacerbated by the accident (see Ceri-Felix v Remy, 217 AD3d 917, 918; Degachi v Faridi, 215 AD3d at 734; Alexander v Gordon, 95 AD3d 1245, 1247). As the plaintiff failed to meet his prima facie burden, we need not consider the sufficiency of the defendant's opposition papers (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853).
The parties' remaining contentions either are improperly raised for the first time on appeal, are without merit, or need not be reached in light of our determination.
GENOVESI, J.P., CHRISTOPHER, WARHIT and VENTURA, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Darrell M. Joseph
Clerk of the Court
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
Pizzo v. Lustig (Pizzo v. Lustig) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.