Opinion
Submitted February 14, 2001.
March 19, 2001.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Weiss, J.), dated May 11, 2000, which denied his 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).
Shapiro, Beilly, Rosenberg, Aronowitz, Levy Fox, LLP, New York, N Y (Roy J. Karlin of counsel), for appellant.
Before: DAVID S. RITTER, J.P., GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, ANITA R. FLORIO, SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
After the defendant established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact as to whether he sustained a significant limitation of use of a body function or system as a result of the subject accident (see, Insurance Law § 5102[d]; Tsivikas v. Budget Rent A Car Systems, 278 A.D.2d 405 [2d Dept., Dec. 18, 2000]; McMonagle v. Independent Coach Corp., 276 A.D.2d 678; Grossman v. Wright, 268 A.D.2d 79). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment.