Miller v. Bratsilova

Full title: Jeffrey MILLER, appellant, v. Oleg BRATSILOVA, et al., respondents.

Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Date published: Jun 11, 2014

118 A.D.3d 761 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)

118 A.D.3d 761

2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 4176

Opinion

2014-06-11

Jeffrey MILLER, appellant, v. Oleg BRATSILOVA, et al., respondents.

Krentsel & Guzman, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Steven E. Krentsel and Julie T. Mark of counsel), for appellant. Kay & Gray (Montfort, Healy, McGuire & Salley, Garden City, N.Y. [Arthur R. Simuro and Donald S. Neumann, Jr.], of counsel), for respondents.

RUTH C. BALKIN

Krentsel & Guzman, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Steven E. Krentsel and Julie T. Mark of counsel), for appellant. Kay & Gray (Montfort, Healy, McGuire & Salley, Garden City, N.Y. [Arthur R. Simuro and Donald S. Neumann, Jr.], of counsel), for respondents.
RUTH C. BALKIN, J.P., SHERI S. ROMAN, SANDRA L. SGROI, and ROBERT J. MILLER, JJ.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Maltese, J.), dated May 6, 2013, as 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 insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and the motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.

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), as the defendants' own expert found significant limitations in the range of motion of both of the plaintiff's shoulders.

Since the defendants did not sustain their prima facie burden, it is unnecessary to determine whether the papers submitted by the plaintiff in opposition were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact ( see Winegrad v. New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 N.Y.2d 851, 487 N.Y.S.2d 316, 476 N.E.2d 642;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.