Court Opinion

ID: 5959739
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-01-13 06:52:36.06318+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:48:04.803903
License: Public Domain

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jacobson, J.), dated March 19, 2013, 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 failed to meet 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 papers submitted by the defendants did not 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 DeVille v Barry, 41 AD3d 763, 763-764 [2007]).
Since the defendants did not sustain their 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 id. at 764). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Rivera, J.E, Hall, Roman and Cohen, JJ., concur.