Case Name: Gabriel Marte, Respondent, v. Milton O. Gregory, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2017-01-18
Citations: 146 A.D.3d 874
Docket Number: 
Parties: Gabriel Marte, Respondent, v Milton O. Gregory, Appellant.
Judges: Balkin, J.P., Chambers, Roman, Duffy and Barros, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 146
Pages: 874–875

Head Matter:
Gabriel Marte, Respondent, v Milton O. Gregory, Appellant.
[44 NYS3d 765]

Opinion:
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schack, J.), dated February 1, 2016, which denied his 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 defendant failed to meet 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 papers submitted by the defendant failed to adequately address the plaintiff's claim, set forth in the bill of particulars, that he sustained a serious injury under the 90/180-day category of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see Che Hong Kim v Kossoff, 90 AD3d 969 [2011]; Rouach v Betts, 71 AD3d 977 [2010]). Since the defendant failed to meet his prima facie burden, it is unnecessary to determine whether the papers submitted by the plaintiff in opposition were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Che Hong Kim v Kossoff, 90 AD3d at 969).
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Balkin, J.P., Chambers, Roman, Duffy and Barros, JJ., concur.