Court Opinion

ID: 9385039
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-05 19:05:37.362106+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:59.274656
License: Public Domain

Liburd v Mondal (2023 NY Slip Op 01785)

Liburd v Mondal

2023 NY Slip Op 01785

Decided on April 5, 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 April 5, 2023
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

BETSY BARROS, J.P.
VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON
DEBORAH A. DOWLING
BARRY E. WARHIT, JJ.

2021-00691
 (Index No. 506242/18)

[*1]Marvin Liburd, appellant, 
vMohammed Mondal, respondent.

Leav & Steinberg, LLP, New York, NY (Regina Koyfman of counsel), for appellant.
Baker, McEvoy & Moskovits, P.C. (Marjorie E. Bornes, Brooklyn, NY, of counsel), for respondent.

DECISION & ORDER
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lara J. Genovesi, J.), dated December 3, 2020. The order granted the defendant's 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 reversed, on the law, with costs, and the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.
The plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for personal injuries that he allegedly sustained in a motor vehicle accident. The defendant 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 December 3, 2020, the Supreme Court granted the motion. The plaintiff appeals.
The defendant failed to meet his 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 defendant's submissions failed to eliminate triable issues of fact regarding the plaintiff's claim, set forth in the bill of particulars, that he 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; see also Richards v Tyson, 64 AD3d 760, 761). Additionally, the defendant failed to address the plaintiff's claims of the exacerbation of preexisting injuries to the cervical and lumbar regions of his spine, his left shoulder, and his left knee (see D'Augustino v Bryan Auto Parts, Inc., 152 AD3d 648, 650; Sanclemente v MTA Bus Co., 116 AD3d 688, 689; Edouazin v Champlain, 89 AD3d 892, 895).
Since the defendant failed to meet his prima facie burden, it is not necessary to determine whether the submissions by the plaintiff in opposition were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether he sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d) as a result of the accident (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853; [*2]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.
BARROS, J.P., BRATHWAITE NELSON, DOWLING and WARHIT, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Maria T. Fasulo
Clerk of the Court