RIVERA v. ALVARADO (2018)

DECISION & ORDER

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Marguerite A. Grays, J.), entered December 6, 2016.  The order granted the defendants' 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 defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.

This action arises from a motor vehicle accident that occurred on February 3, 2014, at or near the intersection of Francis Lewis Boulevard and Laurelton Parkway in Queens.  The plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for personal injuries she allegedly sustained in the accident.  The defendants 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.  The Supreme Court granted the defendants' motion, and the plaintiff appeals.

The defendants met their 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 N.Y.2d 345, 746 N.Y.S.2d 865, 774 N.E.2d 1197;  Gaddy v. Eyler, 79 N.Y.2d 955, 956–957, 582 N.Y.S.2d 990, 591 N.E.2d 1176).  The defendants submitted competent medical evidence establishing, prima facie, that the alleged injuries to the cervical and lumbar regions of the plaintiff's spine did not constitute serious injuries under either the permanent consequential limitation of use or significant limitation of use categories of Insurance Law § 5102(d) (see Staff v. Yshua, 59 A.D.3d 614, 874 N.Y.S.2d 180), and that, in any event, the alleged injuries were not caused by the accident (see Gouvea v. Lesende, 127 A.D.3d 811, 6 N.Y.S.3d 607;  Fontana v. Aamaar & Maani Karan Tr. Corp., 124 A.D.3d 579, 1 N.Y.S.3d 324).

In opposition, however, the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact as to whether she sustained serious injuries to the cervical and lumbar regions of her spine under the permanent consequential limitation of use and significant limitation of use categories of Insurance Law § 5102(d) as a result of the accident (see Perl v. Meher, 18 N.Y.3d 208, 218–219, 936 N.Y.S.2d 655, 960 N.E.2d 424;  see generally Jilani v. Palmer, 83 A.D.3d 786, 787, 920 N.Y.S.2d 424).

The defendants' remaining contention is without merit.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

LEVENTHAL, J.P., AUSTIN, COHEN, BARROS and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.