Bakis v. Cummings , 19 N.Y.S.3d 760 ( 2015 )

Bakis v Cummings (2015 NY Slip Op 08696)

Bakis v Cummings

2015 NY Slip Op 08696

Decided on November 25, 2015

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 November 25, 2015 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P.
L. PRISCILLA HALL
SANDRA L. SGROI
COLLEEN D. DUFFY, JJ.

2015-00941
(Index No. 25551/12)

[*1]Elefterios Bakis, respondent,

v

Steven A. Cummings, appellant.

Adams, Hanson, Rego, Kaplan & Fishbein, Albany, N.Y. (Paul G. Hanson of counsel), for appellant.

Sipsas P.C., Astoria, N.Y. (John P. Sipsas of counsel), for respondent.

DECISION & ORDER

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Nahman, J.), dated December 18, 2014, which denied his 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, with costs.

The defendant met his 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). The defendant submitted competent medical evidence establishing, prima facie, that the alleged injury to the plaintiff's cervical spine did not constitute a serious injury under the permanent consequential limitation of use or significant limitation of use categories of Insurance Law § 5102(d) (see Staff v Yshua, 59 AD3d 614). In opposition, however, the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact as to whether he sustained a serious injury to his cervical spine as a result of the subject accident (see Perl v Meher, 18 NY3d 208, 218-219). Thus, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

MASTRO, J.P., HALL, SGROI and DUFFY, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court