Fields v. HildagoFields v. Hildago
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The appellants failed to meet their prima facie burden of showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of
Since the appellants failed to meet their prima facie burden, we need not address the question of whether the plaintiff‘s submissions raised a triable issue of fact (see Smith v Hartman, 73 AD3d 736, 737 [2010]; Quiceno v Mendoza, 72 AD3d 669 [2010]; Kjono v Fenning, 69 AD3d 581, 582 [2010]; Coscia v 938 Trading Corp., 283 AD2d 538 [2001]). Skelos, J.P., Miller, Eng, Hall and Austin, JJ., concur.
SKELOS, J.P., MILLER, ENG, HALL AND AUSTIN, JJ., concur.