Opinion
Submitted October 17, 2001.
November 19, 2001.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Costello, J.), dated December 21, 2000, which granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the injured plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law — 5102(d).
Harold A. Shapiro, P.C. (The Breakstone Law Firm, P.C., Bellmore, N Y [Jay L.T. Breakstone] of counsel), for appellants.
Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker Sauer, Mineola, N.Y. (Jonathan A. Dachs of counsel), for respondents.
Before: LAWRENCE J. BRACKEN, P.J., GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, DANIEL F. LUCIANO, NANCY E. SMITH, THOMAS A. ADAMS, JJ.
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated.
The defendants failed to meet their initial burden of establishing their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the injured plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law — 5102(d) (see, Chaplin v. Taylor, 273 A.D.2d 188; Mariaca-Olmos v. Mizrhy, 226 A.D.2d 437; Flanagan v. Hoeg, 212 A.D.2d 756). Under these circumstances, it is not necessary to consider whether the plaintiffs' papers were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see, Chaplain v. Taylor, supra; Mariaca-Olmos v. Mizrhy, supra). In any event, we find that the plaintiffs' papers were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see, Kraemer v. Henning, 237 A.D.2d 492; cf., Grossman v. Wright, 268 A.D.2d 79).
BRACKEN, P.J., KRAUSMAN, LUCIANO, SMITH and ADAMS, JJ., concur.