From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Foy v. Pieters

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Jan 13, 2021
190 A.D.3d 700 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)

Opinion

2019–04295 Index No. 1357/11

01-13-2021

Antoinette FOY, plaintiff, Demaris Blair, appellant, v. Kim PIETERS, et al., respondents, et al., defendant.

Harmon, Linder & Rogowsky (Mitchell Dranow, Sea Cliff, NY, of counsel), for appellant. Karen L. Lawrence (Sweetbaum & Sweetbaum, Lake Success, N.Y. [Joel A. Sweetbaum ], of counsel), for respondents Kim Pieters and Michael Persaud. DeSena & Sweeney, LLP, Bohemia, N.Y. (Shawn P. O'Shaughnessy of counsel), for respondent Pauline E. Palmer.


Harmon, Linder & Rogowsky (Mitchell Dranow, Sea Cliff, NY, of counsel), for appellant.

Karen L. Lawrence (Sweetbaum & Sweetbaum, Lake Success, N.Y. [Joel A. Sweetbaum ], of counsel), for respondents Kim Pieters and Michael Persaud.

DeSena & Sweeney, LLP, Bohemia, N.Y. (Shawn P. O'Shaughnessy of counsel), for respondent Pauline E. Palmer.

LEONARD B. AUSTIN, J.P., ROBERT J. MILLER, VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, PAUL WOOTEN, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER In a consolidated action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff Demaris Blair appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Allan B. Weiss, J.), entered March 7, 2019. The order granted the separate motions of the defendant Pauline E. Palmer and the defendants Kim Pieters and Michael Persaud for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted by the plaintiff Demaris Blair against each of them 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 one bill of costs payable by the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs, and the separate motions of the defendant Pauline E. Palmer and the defendants Kim Pieters and Michael Persaud for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted by the plaintiff Demaris Blair against each of them are denied.

In this consolidated action, the plaintiffs seek to recover damages for personal injuries arising out of a motor vehicle accident. The defendant Pauline E. Palmer and the defendants Kim Pieters and Michael Persaud (hereinafter collectively the defendants) separately moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted by the plaintiff Demaris Blair against each of them 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. In an order entered March 7, 2019, the Supreme Court granted the defendants' separate motions. Blair appeals.

The defendants met their prima facie burden of showing that Blair did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d) as a result of the subject accident. The defendants submitted competent medical evidence establishing, prima facie, that the alleged injury to the lumbar region of Blair's spine 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 A.D.3d 614, 874 N.Y.S.2d 180 ). In opposition, however, Blair raised a triable issue of fact as to whether she sustained a serious injury to the lumbar region of her spine under the permanent consequential limitation of use and significant limitation of use categories of Insurance Law § 5102(d) (see Perl v. Meher, 18 N.Y.3d 208, 218–219, 936 N.Y.S.2d 655, 960 N.E.2d 424 ). Contrary to the defendants' contention, the burden did not shift to Blair to raise a triable issue of fact regarding causation or to explain any gap in treatment, as the defendants failed to establish, prima facie, a lack of causation (see Pommells v. Perez, 4 N.Y.3d 566, 577–578, 797 N.Y.S.2d 380, 830 N.E.2d 278 ; Lambropoulos v. Gomez, 166 A.D.3d 952, 86 N.Y.S.3d 737 ).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied the defendants' separate motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted by Blair against each of them on the ground that she did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d) as a result of the accident.

AUSTIN, J.P., MILLER, BRATHWAITE NELSON and WOOTEN, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Foy v. Pieters

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Jan 13, 2021
190 A.D.3d 700 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)
Case details for

Foy v. Pieters

Case Details

Full title:Antoinette Foy, plaintiff, Demaris Blair, appellant, v. Kim Pieters, et…

Court:SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

Date published: Jan 13, 2021

Citations

190 A.D.3d 700 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)
135 N.Y.S.3d 899
2021 N.Y. Slip Op. 153

Citing Cases

Stamford v. Rubinoff

Defendants' reliance on Pommells to challenge plaintiffs alleged gap in treatment is misplaced because…

Skeldon v. Faessler

Moreover, contrary to the defendant's contention, he failed to establish, prima facie, that the alleged…