Case Name: Hilda Cordova-Perez, Respondent, v. Aleeza S. Lauer et al., Appellants
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2015-05-13
Citations: 128 A.D.3d 753
Docket Number: 
Parties: Hilda Cordova-Perez, Respondent, v Aleeza S. Lauer et al., Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 128
Pages: 753–753

Head Matter:
Hilda Cordova-Perez, Respondent, v Aleeza S. Lauer et al., Appellants.
[10 NYS3d 134]

Opinion:
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Iannacci, J.), entered June 5, 2014, 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 Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345 [2002]; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957 [1992]). The defendants submitted competent medical evidence establishing, prima facie, that the alleged injuries to the cervical region of the plaintiffs spine and to her left shoulder 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 AD3d 614 [2009]).
In opposition, however, the plaintiff raised triable issues of fact as to whether she sustained serious injuries to the cervical region of her spine and to her left shoulder (see Perl v Meher, 18 NY3d 208, 218-219 [2011]). Therefore, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Skelos, J.P., Dillon, Austin and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.