Opinion
2018–06782 Index No.708358/14
12-04-2019
GUI HYUN NA, Appellant, v. FIVE STARS TRUCKING, INC., et al., Respondents.
Andrew Park, P.C., New York, NY, for appellant. Goldberg, Miller & Rubin, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Alexander W. Cogbill and Matthew D. Lavoie of counsel), for respondents.
Andrew Park, P.C., New York, NY, for appellant.
Goldberg, Miller & Rubin, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Alexander W. Cogbill and Matthew D. Lavoie of counsel), for respondents.
CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, J.P., LEONARD B. AUSTIN, HECTOR D. LASALLE, BETSY BARROS, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Salvatore J. Modica, J.), entered April 13, 2018. The order 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 plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for personal injuries that she allegedly sustained in a motor vehicle accident on June 10, 2014. The defendants moved 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. By order entered April 13, 2018, the Supreme Court granted the defendants' motion. The plaintiff appeals.
The defendants failed to meet 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 failed to submit competent medical evidence establishing, prima facie, that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury to the cervical and lumbar regions of her spine and her right shoulder, as one of their experts found significant limitations in the range of motion of these body parts (see Singleton v. F & R Royal, Inc. , 166 A.D.3d 837, 838, 88 N.Y.S.3d 81 ; Nun~ez v. Teel , 162 A.D.3d 1058, 1059, 75 N.Y.S.3d 541 ; Mercado v. Mendoza, 133 A.D.3d 833, 834, 19 N.Y.S.3d 757 ; Miller v. Bratsilova, 118 A.D.3d 761, 987 N.Y.S.2d 444 ). Further, the defendants' evidentiary submissions demonstrated the existence of a triable issue of fact as to whether these alleged injuries were caused by the accident (see Straussberg v. Marghub , 108 A.D.3d 694, 695, 968 N.Y.S.2d 898 ; Kearney v. Garrett, 92 A.D.3d 725, 726, 938 N.Y.S.2d 349 ). Since the defendants failed to meet their prima facie burden, it is unnecessary to determine whether the submissions by the plaintiff in opposition were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Che Hong Kim v. Kossoff, 90 A.D.3d 969, 934 N.Y.S.2d 867 ).
Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
CHAMBERS, J.P., AUSTIN, LASALLE and BARROS, JJ., concur.