From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Urbanski v. Mulieri

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 29, 2001
287 A.D.2d 710 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Opinion

Submitted October 10, 2001.

October 29, 2001.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Burke, J.), dated May 7, 2001, which granted the plaintiffs' motion for leave to reargue and, upon reargument, vacated a prior order of the same court, dated February 15, 2001, granting her 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), and denied that motion.

Robert J. Cava, West Babylon, N.Y., for appellant.

Siben Ferber, LLP, Hauppauge, N.Y. (David M. Schwarz of counsel), for respondents.

Before: CORNELIUS J. O'BRIEN, J.P., SONDRA MILLER, LEO F. McGINITY, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, SANDRA L. TOWNES, JJ.


ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiffs leave to reargue (see, CPLR 2221[d][2]). Furthermore, the Supreme Court, upon reargument, properly vacated its prior order and denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, as she failed to establish a prima facie case 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; Langford v. Jewett Transp. Serv., 271 A.D.2d 412). Medical reports from the injured plaintiff's examining physician, which were submitted by the defendant, showed that she suffered limitations of motion in her left knee. The defendant failed to demonstrate that those limitations were not causally related to the subject accident. Accordingly, as the defendant failed to make out a prima facie case of her entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, we need not consider whether the plaintiffs' papers in opposition to the motion were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see, Trantel v. Rothenberg, 286 A.D.2d 325 [2d Dept., Aug. 6, 2001]; Papadonikolakis v. First Fid. Leasing Group, 283 A.D.2d 470; Murphy v. Demas, 277 A.D.2d 208; Chaplin v. Taylor, supra).

O'BRIEN, J.P., S. MILLER, McGINITY, SCHMIDT and TOWNES, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Urbanski v. Mulieri

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 29, 2001
287 A.D.2d 710 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
Case details for

Urbanski v. Mulieri

Case Details

Full title:DOROTHY URBANSKI, ET AL., respondents, v. MILLICENT MULIERI, appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Oct 29, 2001

Citations

287 A.D.2d 710 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
732 N.Y.S.2d 89

Citing Cases

Rodriguez v. Grant

While it is true that a torn knee meniscus can constitute evidence of a serious injury (Pollas v. Jackson, 2…

Mercogliano v. Sears, Roebuck and Co.

Therefore, the defendants failed to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law…