Opinion
2003-00962.
Decided April 12, 2004.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bernstein, J.), dated December 30, 2002, which granted the motion of the defendants Rachael Krawiec and Citiwide Auto Leasing, Inc., and the separate motion of the defendant Serhiy Shurigan for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them on the ground that none of the plaintiffs sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d).
Dominick W. Lavelle, Mineola, N.Y. (Susan R. Nudelman of counsel), for appellants.
Bennett, Moy Miller, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Jeffrey R. Miller of counsel), for respondents Rachael Krawiec and Citiwide Auto Leasing, Inc.
Before: GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, J.P., HOWARD MILLER, THOMAS A. ADAMS, BARRY A. COZIER, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with one bill of costs, the motions are denied, and the complaint is reinstated.
The defendants failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that none of the plaintiffs sustained a serious injury as a result of the subject automobile accident ( see Insurance Law § 5102[d]). In support of their motions, the defendants relied on the unsworn medical reports of the plaintiffs' treating physician ( see Mantila v. Luca, 298 A.D.2d 505; Correa v. Salke, 294 A.D.2d 461; Taccetta v. Scotto, 287 A.D.2d 707; Dillon v. Thomas, 266 A.D.2d 183). Those reports stated that each plaintiff sustained, inter alia, a bulging disc or a disc herniation as a result of the accident, accompanied by a specified decrease in cervical and lumbar ranges of motion. Those findings were supported by objective tests, including magnetic resonance imaging reports, as to each plaintiff ( see Espinal v. Galicia, 290 A.D.2d 528; Asta v. Eivers, 280 A.D.2d 565; Hyacinthe v. U-Haul Co., 278 A.D.2d 369; Boland v. Dig Am., 277 A.D.2d 337; Waziri v. Small, 276 A.D.2d 480; Grossman v. Wright, 268 A.D.2d 79). Accordingly, the defendants did not meet their burden of establishing, as a matter of law, that none of the plaintiffs' injuries were not serious ( see Trantel v. Rothenberg, 286 A.D.2d 325; Skinner v. St. Juste, 243 A.D.2d 554; Flanagan v. Hoeg, 212 A.D.2d 756) or that the injuries were not causally related to the accident ( see Shin v. Torres, 295 A.D.2d 495). As the defendants failed to establish their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the sufficiency of the plaintiffs' opposition papers need not be considered ( see Onder v. Kaminski, 303 A.D.2d 665; Trantel v. Rothenberg, supra).
GOLDSTEIN, J.P., H. MILLER, ADAMS and COZIER, JJ., concur.