Court Opinion

ID: 9371320
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-15 21:07:54.770854+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:26.859718
License: Public Domain

Leon v Eagle Auto Mall Corp. (2023 NY Slip Op 00855)

Leon v Eagle Auto Mall Corp.

2023 NY Slip Op 00855

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

MARK C. DILLON, J.P.
BETSY BARROS
LARA J. GENOVESI
JANICE A. TAYLOR, JJ.

2021-03332
 (Index No. 614139/16)

[*1]William Leon, appellant, 
vEagle Auto Mall Corp., et al., respondents.

Kujawski & Kujawski, Deer Park, NY (Jennifer A. Spellman of counsel), for appellant.
Keith J. Conway, Melville, NY (Daniel P. McCabe 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, Suffolk County (John H. Rouse, J.), dated April 27, 2021. The order granted the defendants' 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 plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for personal injuries that he allegedly sustained in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on April 24, 2014. The defendants moved 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. In an order dated April 27, 2021, the Supreme Court granted the defendants' motion, and the plaintiff appeals.
The defendants met 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 accident (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957). The defendants submitted competent medical evidence establishing, prima facie, that the alleged injuries to the cervical and lumbar regions of the plaintiff's spine and to his left shoulder did not constitute serious injuries under either the permanent consequential limitation of use or significant limitation of use categories of Insurance Law § 5102(d) (see Staff v Yshua, 59 AD3d 614). The defendant also demonstrated, prima facie, that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury under the 90/180-day category of Insurance Law § 5102(d) (see Nicholson v Kwarteng, 180 AD3d 695, 696; Strenk v Rodas, 111 AD3d 920; Karpinos v Cora, 89 AD3d 994, 995). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
DILLON, J.P., BARROS, GENOVESI and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Maria T. Fasulo
Clerk of the Court