Opinion
2013-11-6
Pierre A. FILSAIME, appellant, v. F.B. NYARKO–BRENTUO, et al., respondents.
Law Offices of Paul Bryan Schneider, P.C., Melville, N.Y., for appellant. Law Offices of Richard M. Sands, P.C., Brooklyn, N.Y., for respondents.
Law Offices of Paul Bryan Schneider, P.C., Melville, N.Y., for appellant. Law Offices of Richard M. Sands, P.C., Brooklyn, N.Y., for respondents.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from *281an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Jaeger, J.), dated July 16, 2012, which granted the defendants' 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 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 N.Y.2d 345, 746 N.Y.S.2d 865, 774 N.E.2d 1197;Gaddy v. Eyler, 79 N.Y.2d 955, 956–957, 582 N.Y.S.2d 990, 591 N.E.2d 1176). The defendants submitted competent medical evidence establishing, prima facie, that the alleged injuries to the cervical and lumbar regions of the plaintiff's 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 A.D.3d 614, 874 N.Y.S.2d 180).
In opposition, however, the plaintiff raised triable issues of fact as to whether he sustained serious injuries to the cervical and lumbar regions of his spine ( see Perl v. Meher, 18 N.Y.3d 208, 215–218, 936 N.Y.S.2d 655, 960 N.E.2d 424). Thus, the Supreme Court should have denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.