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.
Wayne Hightower, appellant, v. Christopher R. Ghio, respondent.
Submitted-January 5, 2011
DECISION & ORDER
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Ritter, J.), dated June 1, 2010, which 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).
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 established, prima facie, that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d) (see Toure v. Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 N.Y.2d 345; Gaddy v. Eyler, 79 N.Y.2d 955, 956-957; Acosta v. Rubin, 2 AD3d 657, 659). In opposition, the plaintiff raised triable issues of fact as to whether he sustained serious injuries to the cervical and/or thoracolumbar regions of his spine under the permanent consequential limitation of use and/or the significant limitation of use categories of Insurance Law § 5102(d) (see Compass v. GAE Transp., Inc., 79 AD3d 1091; Boskey v. GTWY, Inc., 78 AD3d 1095).
Although the defendant supported his initial moving papers with evidence that the plaintiff was involved in an automobile accident approximately five years prior to the subject accident, he failed to make a prima facie showing that the plaintiff's injuries were caused by the prior accident. Therefore, the burden did not shift to the plaintiff to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether his injuries were caused by the subject accident, rather than by the prior accident (see Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320, 324; see also Stukas v. Streiter, AD3d, 2011 N.Y. Slip Op 01832 [2d Dept 2011] ).
Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint (see generally Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 562).
SKELOS, J.P., COVELLO, ENG, CHAMBERS and SGROI, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Matthew G. Kiernan
Clerk of the Court
Thank you for your feedback!
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: 2010-06371 (Index No. 3580 /09)
Decided: March 15, 2011
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
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)