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.
Galal S. Algamaly, appellant, et al., plaintiff, v. Azhari H. Mirghani, et al., respondents.
Submitted—September 8, 2010
DECISION & ORDER
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff Galal S. Algamaly appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jacobson, J.), entered August 24, 2009, as granted those branches of the defendants' motion which were for summary judgment dismissing his claims of serious injury under the permanent consequential limitation of use and significant limitation of use categories of Insurance Law § 5102(d) on the ground that he did not sustain any such serious injuries within the meaning of that statute.
ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and those branches of the defendants' motion which were for summary judgment dismissing the appellant's claims of serious injury under the permanent consequential limitation of use and significant limitation of use categories of Insurance Law § 5102(d) on the ground that he did not sustain any such serious injuries within the meaning of that statute are denied.
Under the circumstances presented in this case, we agree with the appellant's contention that the defendants failed to meet their prima facie burden of demonstrating that the appellant 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; Gaddy v. Eyler, 79 N.Y.2d 955, 956–957). Since the defendants did not sustain their prima facie burden, it is unnecessary to determine whether the papers submitted by the appellant in opposition were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Strilcic v. Paroly, 75 AD3d 542; Takaroff v. A.M. USA, Inc., 63 AD3d 1142, 1143; Coscia v 938 Trading Corp., 283 A.D.2d 538).
Accordingly, the defendants' motion for summary judgment should have been denied in its entirety.
MASTRO, J.P., FLORIO, DICKERSON, BELEN and LOTT, 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: 2009–11199 (Index No. 26661 /06)
Decided: October 18, 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)