Case Name: Won Hee Moon, Mother and Natural Guardian of Gloria Kim, Appellant, v. Dominick Vuolo, Respondent
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2014-10-22
Citations: 121 A.D.3d 974
Docket Number: 
Parties: Won Hee Moon, Mother and Natural Guardian of Gloria Kim, Appellant, v Dominick Vuolo, Respondent.
Judges: Dillon, J.E, Dickerson, Roman and Sgroi, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 121
Pages: 974–975

Head Matter:
Won Hee Moon, Mother and Natural Guardian of Gloria Kim, Appellant, v Dominick Vuolo, Respondent.
[995 NYS2d 155]

Opinion:
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Brown, J.), dated September 10, 2013, as granted that branch of the defendant's motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted by the plaintiff on behalf of Gloria Kim on the ground that Gloria Kim 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 insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The defendant met his prima facie burden of showing that the infant Gloria Kim 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 defendant submitted competent medical evidence establishing, prima facie, that the alleged injuries to Kim's right knee and right 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]). The defendant further submitted evidence demonstrating, prima facie, that Kim did not sustain a serious injury under the 90/180-day category of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see Che Hong Kim v Kossoff, 90 AD3d 969 [2011]).
In opposition, no triable issue of fact was raised. Therefore, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the defendant's motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted on behalf of Kim.
Dillon, J.E, Dickerson, Roman and Sgroi, JJ., concur.