Court Opinion

ID: 9379570
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-15 19:06:52.028088+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:36.180910
License: Public Domain

Bradley v Palin (2023 NY Slip Op 01276)

Bradley v Palin

2023 NY Slip Op 01276

Decided on March 15, 2023

Appellate Division, Second Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on March 15, 2023
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, J.P.
ROBERT J. MILLER
PAUL WOOTEN
LILLIAN WAN, JJ.

2021-02237
 (Index No. 701967/18)

[*1]Donald Bradley, etc., appellant,
vKeith Palin, et al., respondents.

Law Office of Patrick Mullaney, P.C. (Michael H. Zhu, Esq., P.C., New York, NY, of counsel), for appellant.
Anna J. Ervolina, Brooklyn, NY (Timothy J. O'Shaughnessy of counsel), for respondents.

DECISION & ORDER
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Joseph J. Risi, J.), entered March 8, 2021. The order, insofar as appealed from, granted that branch of the defendants' motion which was 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 reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and that branch of the defendants' motion which was 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 is denied.
The plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for personal injuries allegedly sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident. The defendants moved, inter alia, 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 accident. By order entered March 8, 2021, the Supreme Court, among other things, granted that branch of the motion. The plaintiff appeals.
The defendants failed to meet their prima facie burden of demonstrating that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d) as a result of the accident (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957). The defendants' submissions failed to eliminate triable issues of fact regarding 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 Despinos-Cadet v Stein, 209 AD3d 978, 980; Che Hong Kim v Kossoff, 90 AD3d 969; cf. Richards v Tyson, 64 AD3d 760, 761).
Since the defendants failed to meet their prima facie burden, it is unnecessary to determine whether the plaintiff's submissions were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853; Despinos-Cadet v Stein, 209 AD3d at 980).
Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied that branch of the defendants' motion which was 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 accident.
CONNOLLY, J.P., MILLER, WOOTEN and WAN, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Maria T. Fasulo
Clerk of the Court