Jung Han v. Dragonetti Landscaping

Jung Han v Dragonetti Landscaping (2019 NY Slip Op 05768) Jung Han v Dragonetti Landscaping 2019 NY Slip Op 05768 Decided on July 24, 2019 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 July 24, 2019 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P. RUTH C. BALKIN BETSY BARROS LINDA CHRISTOPHER, JJ. 2017-12600 (Index No. 511954/15) [*1]Jung Han, respondent, v Dragonetti Landscaping, et al., appellants. Goldberg, Miller & Rubin, P.C., New York, NY (Alexander W. Cogbill and Matthew D. Lavorie of counsel), for appellants. Andrew Park, P.C., New York, NY (Steve J. Park of counsel), for respondent. DECISION & ORDER In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kathy J. King, J.), dated October 4, 2017. The order denied the defendants' 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 plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for personal injuries that he allegedly sustained in a motor vehicle accident. The defendants moved 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. The Supreme Court denied the defendants' motion. 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 accident (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957). The papers submitted by the defendants failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether the plaintiff sustained a serious injury under the 90/180-day category of Insurance Law § 5102(d) (see Burt v MTA Bus Co., ___ AD3d ___, 2019 NY Slip Op 03562 [2d Dept 2019]). Since the defendants failed to meet their prima facie burden in this regard, it is unnecessary to determine whether the submissions by the plaintiff in opposition were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Che Hong Kim v Kossoff, 90 AD3d 969, 969). Accordingly, we agree with the Supreme Court's determination denying the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. MASTRO, J.P., BALKIN, BARROS and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur. ENTER: Aprilanne Agostino Clerk of the Court