From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Stanley v. Caddie Serv. Co.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Oct 2, 2013
110 A.D.3d 711 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)

Opinion

2013-10-2

Eric STANLEY, respondent, v. CADDIE SERVICE CO., INC., et al., appellants.

Baker, McEvoy, Morrissey & Moskovits, P.C., Brooklyn, N.Y. (Stacy R. Seldin of counsel), for appellants. Krentsel & Guzman, LLP (Mischel & Horn, P.C., New York, N.Y. [Scott T. Horn and Naomi M. Taub], of counsel), for respondent.


Baker, McEvoy, Morrissey & Moskovits, P.C., Brooklyn, N.Y. (Stacy R. Seldin of counsel), for appellants. Krentsel & Guzman, LLP (Mischel & Horn, P.C., New York, N.Y. [Scott T. Horn and Naomi M. Taub], of counsel), for respondent.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (F.Rivera, J.), dated January 25, 2013, which denied their 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 affirmed, with costs.

The defendants met 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 *887Toure 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 submitted competent medical evidence establishing, prima facie, that the alleged injuries to the plaintiff's left shoulder and to the cervical and lumbar regions of his spine, did not constitute serious injuries 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, the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact as to whether he sustained a serious injury to his left shoulder ( see Perl v. Meher, 18 N.Y.3d 208, 218–219, 936 N.Y.S.2d 655, 960 N.E.2d 424). Thus, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

SKELOS, J.P., DICKERSON, LOTT and AUSTIN, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Stanley v. Caddie Serv. Co.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Oct 2, 2013
110 A.D.3d 711 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)
Case details for

Stanley v. Caddie Serv. Co.

Case Details

Full title:Eric STANLEY, respondent, v. CADDIE SERVICE CO., INC., et al., appellants.

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

Date published: Oct 2, 2013

Citations

110 A.D.3d 711 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)
2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 6357
971 N.Y.S.2d 886

Citing Cases

Turcios-Rodriguez v. Velasquez

In opposition to the motion, plaintiff has raised a triable issue of fact as to whether he sustained an…

Lazo v. Bacher

However, evidence of contemporaneous range of motion limitations is not a prerequisite to recovery (seePerl v…