Hyperlawhypertext legal databasebeta Taylor v. Hall 144 A.D.3d 663

← Cases

Taylor v. Hall

144 A.D.3d 663 Court N.Y. App. Div. Decision date 2016-11-02 English

Judges Rivera, J.P., Dickerson, Maltese and Connolly, JJ., concur.

Contents

Majority

p. 663
Dashwan Taylor, Appellant, v Markia Crystal Hall, Respondent.
[39 NYS3d 820]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Sampson, J.), entered March 6, 2015, which granted the defendant’s 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 reversed, on the law, with costs, and the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.

The defendant met her 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 [2002];

p. 664
Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955 , 956-957 [1992]). The defendant submitted competent medical evidence establishing, prima facie, that the alleged injury to the lumbar region of the plaintiff’s spine did not constitute a serious injury under either the permanent consequential limitation of use or significant limitation of use categories of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see Staff v Yshua, 59 AD3d 614 [2009]). In opposition, however, the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact as to whether he sustained a serious injury to the lumbar region of his spine (see Perl v Meher, 18 NY3d 208 , 218-219 [2011]).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Rivera, J.P., Dickerson, Maltese and Connolly, JJ., concur.

Cases cited

Statutes and regulations cited