Source: http://www.garyrosenberg-law.com/blog/2012/june/defense-summary-judgment-denied-genuine-issues-o/
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 18:35:34+00:00

Document:
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Brathwaite-Nelson, J.), entered May 11, 2011, which granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff Antonio Fernandez did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law Sec. 5102(d).
The defendants met their prima facie burden of showing that the plaintiff Antonio Fernandez (hereinafter the injured plaintiff) did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law Sec. 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). The plaintiffs alleged, inter alia, that as a result of the subject accident, the injured plaintiff sustained certain injuries to the cervical region of his spine and to his right shoulder. The defendants submitted competent medical evidence establishing, prima facie, that the alleged injuries to the cervical region of the injured plaintiff's spine and his right shoulder did not constitute serious injuries within the meaning of Insurance Law Sec. 5102(d) (see Rodriguez v. Huerfano, 46 A.D.3d 794, 795, 849 N.Y.S.2d 275), and, in any event, were not caused by the subject accident (see Jilani v. Palmer, 83 A.D.3d 786, 787, 920 N.Y.S.2d 424).
In opposition, the plaintiffs submitted competent medical evidence raising a triable issue of fact as to whether the alleged injuries to the cervical region of the injured plaintiff's spine and his right shoulder constituted serious injuries under the permanent consequential limitation of use and/or significant limitation of use categories of Insurance Law Sec. 5102 (d) (see Perl v. Meher, 18 N.Y.3d 208, 215-218, 936 N.Y.S.2d 655, 960 N.E.2d 424). Furthermore, the plaintiffs also submitted competent medical evidence raising a triable issue of fact as to whether the alleged injuries to the cervical region of the injured plaintiff's spine and to his right shoulder were caused by the subject accident (id. at 218-219, 936 N.Y.S.2d 655, 960 N.E.2d 424; Jaramillo v. Lobo, 32 A.D.3d 417, 418, 820 N.Y.S.2d 608), and provided a reasonable explanation for the cessation of the injured plaintiff's medical treatment (see Pommells v. Perez, 4 N.Y.3d 566, 574, 797 N.Y.S.2d 380, 830 N.E.2d 278). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.