Case Name: Lena Rovensky, Respondent, v. Tamar Transportation Corp. et al., Appellants
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2013-06-12
Citations: 107 A.D.3d 779
Docket Number: 
Parties: Lena Rovensky, Respondent, v Tamar Transportation Corp. et al., Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 107
Pages: 779–779

Head Matter:
Lena Rovensky, Respondent, v Tamar Transportation Corp. et al., Appellants.
[966 NYS2d 691]

Opinion:
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Eartnow, J.), dated July 3, 2012, 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, inter alia, competent medical evidence establishing, prima facie, that the alleged injuries to the plaintiffs right shoulder were not caused by the subject accident (see Jilani v Palmer, 83 AD3d 786, 787 [2011]).
In opposition, however, the plaintiff submitted evidence raising a triable issue of fact as to whether she sustained a serious injury to her right shoulder that was caused by the accident (see Perl v Meher, 18 NY3d 208, 218-219 [2011]). Thus, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Angiolillo, J.P., Balkin, Austin and Miller, JJ., concur.