Case Name: Olivia D. Bennett, Appellant, v. Melissa Stanford et al., Respondents
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2017-03-08
Citations: 148 A.D.3d 767
Docket Number: 
Parties: Olivia D. Bennett, Appellant, v Melissa Stanford et al., Respondents.
Judges: Rivera, J.R, Austin, Roman, Hinds-Radix and Connolly, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 148
Pages: 767–767

Head Matter:
Olivia D. Bennett, Appellant, v Melissa Stanford et al., Respondents.
[48 NYS3d 737]

Opinion:
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Rouse, J.), entered October 15, 2015, which, upon an order of the same court dated September 14, 2015, granting the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that she did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject accident, is in favor of the defendants and against her dismissing the complaint. The notice of appeal from the order is deemed to be a notice of appeal from the judgment (see CPLR 5512 [a]).
Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, with costs, the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied, the complaint is reinstated, and the order dated September 14, 2015, is modified accordingly.
In support of their motion for summary judgment, 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 injury to the cervical region of the plaintiff's spine did not constitute a serious injury 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 a triable issue of fact as to whether she sustained a serious injury to the cervical region of her spine under the permanent consequential limitation of use and significant limitation of use categories of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see Perl v Meher, 18 NY3d 208, 218-219 [2011]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Rivera, J.R, Austin, Roman, Hinds-Radix and Connolly, JJ., concur.