Case Name: Philogene Breville, Respondent, v. Yosniel Jerez et al., Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2013-02-06
Citations: 103 A.D.3d 605
Docket Number: 
Parties: Philogene Breville, Respondent, v Yosniel Jerez et al., Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 103
Pages: 605–606

Head Matter:
Philogene Breville, Respondent, v Yosniel Jerez et al., Appellant.
[958 NYS2d 626]—

Opinion:
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Partnow, J.), dated May 22, 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]). In opposition, however, the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact as to whether he sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject accident (see Burgos v Castro, 99 AD3d 848 [2012]). Accordingly, the defendants' 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 was properly denied. Dillon, J.E, Hall, Roman and Cohen, JJ., concur.