Case Name: Antonios Koutsoumbis, Appellant, v. John R. Paciocco, Respondent
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2017-04-26
Citations: 149 A.D.3d 1055
Docket Number: 
Parties: Antonios Koutsoumbis, Appellant, v John R. Paciocco, Respondent.
Judges: Chambers, J.P., Hall, Maltese and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 149
Pages: 1055–1056

Head Matter:
Antonios Koutsoumbis, Appellant, v John R. Paciocco, Respondent.
[50 NYS3d 889]

Opinion:
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Brown, J.), entered November 25, 2015, as granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that he 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 insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.
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 his bill of particulars, that he sustained a medically determined injury or impairment of a nonpermanent nature which prevented him from performing substantially all of the material acts which constituted his usual and customary daily activities for not less than 90 days during the 180 days immediately following the subject accident (see Che Hong Kim v Kossoff, 90 AD3d 969 [2011]; Rouach v Betts, 71 AD3d 977 [2010]; cf. Calucci v Baker, 299 AD2d 897, 898 [2002]). 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 should have denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Chambers, J.P., Hall, Maltese and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ., concur.