Court Opinion

ID: 3191920
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-04-06 20:07:36.428684+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:16:43.377772
License: Public Domain

Rivera v Losee (2016 NY Slip Op 02634)

Rivera v Losee

2016 NY Slip Op 02634

Decided on April 6, 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 April 6, 2016
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

RUTH C. BALKIN, J.P.
LEONARD B. AUSTIN
SANDRA L. SGROI
HECTOR D. LASALLE, JJ.

2015-06880
 (Index No. 20728/12)

[*1]Malissa A. Rivera, respondent, 
vRussell C. Losee, appellant.

Russo, Apoznanski & Tambasco, Melville, NY (Susan J. Mitola of counsel), for appellant.
Sim & Record, LLP, Bayside, NY (Sang J. Sim of counsel), for respondent.

DECISION & ORDER
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Rouse, J.), dated May 1, 2015, which denied his 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 defendant, whose expert found a significant limitation in the range of motion in the lumbar region of the plaintiff's spine, failed to meet his 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 subject accident (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957; Mercado v Mendoza, 133 AD3d 833, 834; Miller v Bratsilova, 118 AD3d 761).
Since the defendant failed to meet his prima facie burden, it is unnecessary to determine whether the papers submitted by the plaintiff in opposition were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Che Hong Kim v Kossoff, 90 AD3d 969). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
BALKIN, J.P., AUSTIN, SGROI and LASALLE, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Aprilanne Agostino
Clerk of the Court