MILLER v. SINGH (2026)

DECISION & ORDER

A/

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Francois A. Rivera, J.), dated October 18, 2024.  The order denied 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 affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for personal injuries that he allegedly sustained in a motor vehicle 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 subject accident.  In an order dated October 18, 2024, the Supreme Court denied the motion.  The defendants appeal.

The defendants failed to meet 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' submissions failed to eliminate triable issues of fact regarding the plaintiff's claims that he sustained a serious injury under the 90/180–day category of Insurance Law § 5102(d) (see Che Hong Kim v. Kossoff, 90 A.D.3d 969, 934 N.Y.S.2d 867;  Rouach v. Betts, 71 A.D.3d 977, 897 N.Y.S.2d 242;  see also Richards v. Tyson, 64 A.D.3d 760, 761, 883 N.Y.S.2d 575).

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

BARROS, J.P., CHRISTOPHER, LANDICINO and LOVE, JJ., concur.