Court Opinion

ID: 4223266
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2017-11-22 20:11:43.471914+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:47:51.485082
License: Public Domain

Iacobino v Coyle (2017 NY Slip Op 08262)

Iacobino v Coyle

2017 NY Slip Op 08262

Decided on November 22, 2017

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 November 22, 2017
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

RANDALL T. ENG, P.J.
REINALDO E. RIVERA
SHERI S. ROMAN
FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, JJ.

2016-01875
 (Index No. 22139/13)

[*1]Monica Iacobino, et al., appellants, 
vMary E. Coyle, respondent.

Subin Associates, LLP, New York, NY (Robert J. Eisen and Pollack, Pollack, Isaac & DeCicco, LLP [Brian J. Isaac], of counsel), for appellants.
Russo & Tambasco, Melville, NY (Yamile Al-Sullami and Christopher M. Gavin of counsel), for respondent.

DECISION & ORDER
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Walker, J.), dated December 21, 2015, which granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiffs 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, on the law, with costs, and the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.
The defendant failed to meet her prima facie burden of showing that the plaintiffs 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 papers submitted by the defendant failed to adequately address the plaintiffs' claims, set forth in the bill of particulars, that they each sustained a serious injury under the 90/180-day category of Insurance Law § 5102(d) (see Che Hong Kim v Kossoff, 90 AD3d 969; Rouach v Betts, 71 AD3d 977). Since the defendant failed to meet her prima facie burden, it is unnecessary to determine whether the papers submitted by the plaintiffs in opposition were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Che Hong Kim v Kossoff, 90 AD3d at 969).
Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
ENG, P.J., RIVERA, ROMAN and CONNOLLY, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Aprilanne Agostino
Clerk of the Court