Hussain v. Manhattan Cable T.V.Hussain v. Manhattan Cable T.V.
—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Garry, J.), dated March 20, 2002, as granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the defendants’ motion for summary judgment is denied, and the complaint is reinstated.
The plaintiff allegedly was injured when his vehicle collided with a truck owned by the defendant Manhattan Cable T.V., and operated by the defendant Rose Wardell. The Supreme
In opposition to the defendants’ prima facie showing of their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability, the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the accident occurred after the defendants’ vehicle cut him off (see Rozengauz v Lok Wing Ha,
Moreover, the defendants failed to establish their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the plaintiff did not sustain a medically-determined injury of a nonpermanent nature which prevented him from performing substantially all of the material acts which constituted his usual and customary daily activities for not less than 90 days during the 180 days immediately following the accident (see