Court Opinion

ID: 5729319
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-01-12 16:21:48.757221+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:40:51.601794
License: Public Domain

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Harkavy, J.), dated July 5, 2006, 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).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The defendant failed to establish, prima facie, 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 failed to even address, much less satisfy, his burden with respect to the plaintiffs allegation that he suffered a knee injury as a result of the accident (see Hughes v Cai, 31 AD3d 385 [2006]; Loadholt v New York City Tr. Auth., 12 AD3d 352 [2004]). Since the defendant failed to establish his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law in the first instance, it is unnecessary to reach the question of whether the plaintiffs papers were suf*453ficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Coscia v 938 Trading Corp., 283 AD2d 538 [2001]). Schmidt, J.P., Krausman, Goldstein, Covello and Angiolillo, JJ., concur.