Case Name: Yiannoula Charalambous, Appellant, v. Don J. Brown, Respondent
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2016-01-27
Citations: 135 A.D.3d 892
Docket Number: 
Parties: Yiannoula Charalambous, Appellant, v Don J. Brown, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 135
Pages: 892–893

Head Matter:
Yiannoula Charalambous, Appellant, v Don J. Brown, Respondent.
[23 NYS3d 584]

Opinion:
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lane, J.), entered November 17, 2014, which granted the defendant's 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 reversed, on the law, with costs, and the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.
The defendant met his 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 defendant submitted competent medical evidence establishing, prima facie, that the alleged injuries to the cervical and lumbar regions of the plaintiff's spine, as well as to her left knee, 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 submitted competent medical evidence which raised a triable issue of fact as to whether she sustained serious injuries to the cervical and lumbar regions of her spine and to her left knee under the permanent consequential limitation of use or 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 defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Mastro, J.P., Hall, Sgroi and Duffy, JJ., concur.