Court Opinion

ID: 3180045
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-02-24 19:21:59.151389+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:38:56.345288
License: Public Domain

Robles v Mulligan (2016 NY Slip Op 01312)

Robles v Mulligan

2016 NY Slip Op 01312

Decided on February 24, 2016

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 24, 2016
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

RUTH C. BALKIN, J.P.
CHERYL E. CHAMBERS
JEFFREY A. COHEN
SYLVIA O. HINDS-RADIX, JJ.

2015-06536
 (Index No. 59458/12)

[*1]Hector J. Robles, respondent, 
vRichard Mulligan, et al., appellants.

Law Offices of Richard M. Sands, P.C., Brooklyn, NY, for appellants.
Fitzgerald Law Firm, P.C., Yonkers, NY (John M. Daly, Deborah Pearl Henkin, and Alberto Casadevall of counsel), for respondent.

DECISION & ORDER
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Connolly, J.), dated June 26, 2015, as 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 insofar as appealed from, with costs.
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 subject 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 were not caused by the subject accident (see Gouvea v Lesende, 127 AD3d 811; Fontana v Aamaar & Maani Karan Tr. Corp., 124 AD3d 579; see generally Jilani v Palmer, 83 AD3d 786, 787).
In opposition, however, the plaintiff raised triable issues of fact as to whether the alleged injuries to the cervical and lumbar regions of his spine were caused by the accident (see Perl v Meher, 18 NY3d 208, 218-219; Compass v GAE Transp., Inc., 79 AD3d 1091, 1092).
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
BALKIN, J.P., CHAMBERS, COHEN and HINDS-RADIX, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Aprilanne Agostino
Clerk of the Court