Case Name: Thomas H. Farina, Respondent, v. Brendan A. Rafferty et al., Appellants
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2016-01-13
Citations: 135 A.D.3d 698
Docket Number: 
Parties: Thomas H. Farina, Respondent, v Brendan A. Rafferty et al., Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 135
Pages: 698–698

Head Matter:
Thomas H. Farina, Respondent, v Brendan A. Rafferty et al., Appellants.
[22 NYS3d 875]

Opinion:
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Minardo, J.), dated January 21, 2015, 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]). The defendants submitted competent medical evidence establishing, prima facie, that the alleged injury to the lumbar region of the plaintiffs 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]), 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, however, the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact as to whether he sustained a serious injury to the lumbar region of his spine under the permanent consequential limitation of use or significant limitation of use categories of Insurance Law § 5102 (d), and as to whether the alleged injury was caused by the accident (see Perl v Meher, 18 NY3d 208, 218-219 [2011]). Thus, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Mastro, J.P., Hall, Sgroi and Duffy, JJ., concur.