| Miller v Johns |
| 2017 NY Slip Op 01347 |
| Decided on February 22, 2017 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. |
Decided on February 22, 2017 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
MARK C. DILLON, J.P.
CHERYL E. CHAMBERS
SANDRA L. SGROI
JOSEPH J. MALTESE
BETSY BARROS, JJ.
2016-02010
(Index No. 4898/14)
v
Keith Johns, et al., respondents. Sobo & Sobo, LLP, Middletown, NY (Mark P. Cambareri of counsel), for appellant.
Adams, Hanson, Rego & Kaplan, Albany, NY (Paul G. Hanson of counsel), for respondents.
DECISION & ORDER
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Slobod, J.), dated December 7, 2015, which granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint 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 reversed, on the law, with costs, and the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.
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 subject accident (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957). Contrary to the Supreme Court's determination, the defendants' evidentiary submissions demonstrated the existence of a triable issue of fact as to whether the alleged injury to the lumbar region of the plaintiff's spine was caused by the accident (see Straussberg v Marghub, 108 AD3d 694, 695; Kearney v Garrett, 92 AD3d 725, 726).
Since the defendants failed to meet their prima facie burden, it is unnecessary to determine whether the papers submitted by the plaintiff in opposition were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
DILLON, J.P., CHAMBERS, SGROI, MALTESE and BARROS, JJ., concur.
ENTER:Aprilanne Agostino
Clerk of the Court