Court Opinion

ID: 9398623
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-31 19:09:20.191339+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:35.108502
License: Public Domain

Scala v Benitez (2023 NY Slip Op 02902)

Scala v Benitez

2023 NY Slip Op 02902

Decided on May 31, 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 May 31, 2023
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

COLLEEN D. DUFFY, J.P.
JOSEPH J. MALTESE
DEBORAH A. DOWLING
BARRY E. WARHIT, JJ.

2020-06870 
2020-07971
 (Index No. 609606/18)

[*1]Rebecca D. Scala, appellant, 
vSamuel Enrique Ochoa Benitez, et al., respondents.

Dell & Dean, PLLC (Joseph G. Dell and Mischel & Horn, P.C., New York, NY [Scott T. Horn and Andrew J. Fisher], of counsel), for appellant.
Jacobson & Schwartz, LLP, Jericho, NY (Brian S. Marcus and Henry J. Cernitz of counsel), for respondents.

DECISION & ORDER
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (James P. McCormack, J.), entered September 2, 2020, and (2) a judgment of the same court dated October 6, 2020. 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. The judgment, upon the order, is in favor of the defendants and against the plaintiff dismissing the complaint.
ORDERED that the appeal from the order is dismissed; and it is further,
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed; and it is further,
ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the defendants.
The appeal from the order must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of the judgment in the action (see Matter of Aho, 39 NY2d 241, 248). The issues raised on the appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment (see CPLR 5501[a][1]).
The plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for personal injuries that she alleged she sustained in a motor vehicle accident. 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 subject accident. In an order entered September 2, 2020, the Supreme Court granted the motion. Thereafter, a judgment was entered upon the order, in favor of the defendants and against the plaintiff dismissing the complaint. The plaintiff appeals.
Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the defendants met their prima facie burden of [*2]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 plaintiff's shoulder and the cervical region of her spine 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). In addition, the defendants demonstrated, prima facie, that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury under the 90/180-day category of Insurance Law § 5102(d) (see Wettstein v Tucker, 178 AD3d 1121; John v Linden, 124 AD3d 598, 599; Marin v Ieni, 108 AD3d 656, 657). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Wettstein v Tucker, 178 AD3d at 1122).
The parties' remaining contentions need not be reached in light of our determination.
DUFFY, J.P., MALTESE, DOWLING and WARHIT, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Maria T. Fasulo
Clerk of the Court