Trunzo v. Yannotti

122 A.D.3d 722, 996 N.Y.S.2d 171
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 12, 2014
Docket2013-10648
StatusPublished

This text of 122 A.D.3d 722 (Trunzo v. Yannotti) 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
Trunzo v. Yannotti, 122 A.D.3d 722, 996 N.Y.S.2d 171 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (McDonald, J.), dated September 23, 2013, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that she 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 defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.

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 to the cervical and thoracolumbar regions of the plaintiffs spine did not constitute serious injuries 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 triable issues of *723 fact as to whether she sustained serious injuries to the cervical and thoracolumbar regions of her spine (see Perl v Meher, 18 NY3d 208, 215-218 [2011]). Therefore, the Supreme Court should have denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Dillon, J.E, Dickerson, Roman and Sgroi, JJ., concur. [Prior Case History: 2013 NY Slip Op 32341(U).]

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)
122 A.D.3d 722, 996 N.Y.S.2d 171, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/trunzo-v-yannotti-nyappdiv-2014.