Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
EDWARD GAWRON, PLAINTIFF, AND JOANNE GAWRON, PLAINTIFF–RESPONDENT, v. TOWN OF CHEEKTOWAGA AND DAVID J. GRZYBEK, DEFENDANTS–APPELLANTS.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Plaintiffs commenced this action seeking damages for injuries they sustained when their vehicle was struck by a snowplow owned by defendant Town of Cheektowaga and operated by its employee, defendant David J. Grzybek. Supreme Court properly denied defendants' motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint with respect to Joanne Gawron (plaintiff) on the ground that she did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d). Defendants failed to make “a prima facie showing that plaintiff's alleged injuries did not satisfy [the] serious injury threshold” under the three categories alleged by plaintiff (Pommells v. Perez, 4 NY3d 566, 574; see Greenidge v. Righton Limo, Inc., 43 AD3d 1109, 1109), and we therefore do not consider plaintiff's submissions in opposition to the motion (see Greenidge, 43 AD3d at 1110). With respect to the categories of permanent consequential limitation of use and significant limitation of use, defendants' own submissions raise triable issues of fact whether plaintiff's alleged limitations are
“ ‘significant’ or ‘consequential’ (i.e., important ․ )” within the meaning of the statute (Dufel v. Green, 84 N.Y.2d 795, 798; see Matte v. Hall, 20 AD3d 898, 899). Defendants' own submissions also raise triable issues of fact whether plaintiff's injuries were preexisting and unrelated to the accident (cf. Franchini v. Palmieri, 307 A.D.2d 1056, 1056–1057, affd 1 NY3d 536). In addition, defendants failed to meet their burden of establishing that plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury under the third category alleged by plaintiff, i.e., the 90/180–day category (see Greenidge, 43 AD3d at 1109–1110).
Frances E. Cafarell
Clerk of the Court
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: CA 14–01344
Decided: February 13, 2015
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)