Case Name: Dawn Cruz et al., Appellants, v. Ava Service Corp. et al., Respondents, et al., Defendant. (And Third-Party Actions.)
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2016-12-28
Citations: 145 A.D.3d 958
Docket Number: 
Parties: Dawn Cruz et al., Appellants, v Ava Service Corp. et al., Respondents, et al., Defendant. (And Third-Party Actions.)
Judges: Leventhal, J.R, Cohen, Miller and Connolly, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 145
Pages: 958–959

Head Matter:
Dawn Cruz et al., Appellants, v Ava Service Corp. et al., Respondents, et al., Defendant. (And Third-Party Actions.)
[42 NYS3d 858]

Opinion:
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Taylor, J.), dated May 6, 2014, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendants Ava Service Corp. and Ramon M. Flores which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted by the plaintiff Dawn Cruz 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.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The defendants Ava Service Corp. and Ramon M. Flores (hereinafter together the moving defendants) met their prima facie burden of showing that the plaintiff Dawn Cruz 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 moving defendants submitted competent medical evidence establishing, prima facie, that the alleged injury to the plaintiff Dawn Cruz's left knee 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]), and that, in any event, the alleged injury was not caused by the subject accident (see generally Jilani v Palmer, 83 AD3d 786, 787 [2011]). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact.
The plaintiffs' contentions on appeal with respect to Dawn Cruz's lumbar spine and left shoulder were not raised before the Supreme Court and, thus, are not properly before this Court.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the moving defendants' motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted by the plaintiff Dawn Cruz.
Leventhal, J.R, Cohen, Miller and Connolly, JJ., concur.