Dovid Hiller, et al., respondents, v. Jetex Services, Inc., et al., appellants. (2026)

Argued—January 6, 2026

DECISION & ORDER

W/

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Ulysses B. Leverett, J.), dated July 24, 2024.  The order, insofar as appealed from, denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them by the plaintiff Dovid Hiller on the ground that he 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 affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiffs commenced this action to recover damages for personal injuries that they allegedly sustained in a motor vehicle accident.  The defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them by the plaintiff Dovid Hiller on the ground that he did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d) as a result of the accident.  In an order dated July 24, 2024, the Supreme Court, inter alia, denied the defendants' motion.  The defendants appeal.

The defendants' established, prima facie, that the alleged injuries to the cervical and lumbar regions of Hiller's spine were not caused by the accident (see Amirova v. JND Trans, Inc., 206 AD3d 601, 602;  Gash v. Miller, 177 AD3d 950;  Gouvea v. Lesende, 127 AD3d 811).  However, in opposition, the plaintiffs raised a triable issue of fact as to whether Hiller's injuries were caused by the accident (see Perl v. Meher, 18 NY3d 208;  Polight v. Martin, 237 AD3d 990, 992;  Owens v. ELRAC, LLC, 213 AD3d 684, 685).

The defendants failed to submit competent medical evidence establishing, prima facie, that Hiller did not sustain a serious injury to the cervical and lumbar regions of his spine under either the permanent consequential limitation of use or significant limitation of use categories of Insurance Law § 5102(d).  The defendants' expert found significant limitations in the range of motion of the cervical and lumbar regions of Hiller's spine and failed to adequately explain and substantiate, with competent medical evidence, his belief that the limitations were self-imposed (see Matveieva v. Metropolitan Transp.  Auth., 212 AD3d 726, 726;  Mondesir v. Ahmed, 175 AD3d 1291;  Singleton v. F & R Royal, Inc., 166 AD3d 837, 838).

The defendants' remaining contentions either are without merit or need not be reached in light of our determination.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them by Hiller on the ground that he did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d) as a result of the subject accident.

GENOVESI, J.P., CHRISTOPHER, WARHIT and VENTURA, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Darrell M. Joseph

Clerk of the Court