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.
Omar AWADH, appellant, v. Peterson MORONTA, etc., respondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vaughan, J.), dated July 7, 2010, which granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that he 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 met 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 subject accident (see Toure v. Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 N.Y.2d 345, 746 N.Y.S.2d 865, 774 N.E.2d 1197; Gaddy v. Eyler, 79 N.Y.2d 955, 582 N.Y.S.2d 990, 591 N.E.2d 1176). The plaintiff alleged, inter alia, that he sustained certain injuries to the lumbar region of his spine as a result of the subject accident. The defendant, among other things, provided competent medical evidence establishing, prima facie, that the alleged injuries to the lumbar region of the plaintiff's spine did not constitute a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d) (see Perl v. Meher, 74 A.D.3d 930, 902 N.Y.S.2d 632; Gonzales v. Fiallo, 47 A.D.3d 760, 849 N.Y.S.2d 182).
However, in opposition, the plaintiff provided competent medical evidence raising a triable issue of fact as to whether the alleged injuries to the lumbar region of his spine constituted a serious injury under the permanent consequential limitation of use and/or significant limitation of use categories of Insurance Law § 5102(d) (see Dixon v. Fuller, 79 A.D.3d 1094, 1094–1095, 913 N.Y.S.2d 776). Furthermore, contrary to the Supreme Court's determination, he provided a reasonable explanation for the cessation of his medical treatment (see Abdelaziz v. Fazel, 78 A.D.3d 1086, 912 N.Y.S.2d 103).
Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
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.
Decided: July 05, 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)