Rodriguez v. Wilson

Rodriguez v Wilson (2019 NY Slip Op 06812) Rodriguez v Wilson 2019 NY Slip Op 06812 Decided on September 25, 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 September 25, 2019 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, J.P. JOSEPH J. MALTESE BETSY BARROS FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, JJ. 2018-05935 (Index No. 810/15) [*1]Manuel H. Rodriguez, appellant, v Craig J. Wilson, et al., respondents. Pavlounis & Sfouggatakis, LLP (The Altman Law Firm, PLLC, Woodmere, NY [Michael T. Altman], of counsel), for appellant. Andrea G. Sawyers, Melville, NY (Scott W. Driver 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, Nassau County (Anna R. Anzalone, J.), entered February 13, 2018. The order, insofar as appealed from, granted 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 reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied. The plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for personal injuries that he allegedly sustained in a motor vehicle accident on December 2, 2014. 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 accident. The Supreme Court, inter alia, granted the defendants' motion, and the plaintiff appeals. 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). The defendants failed to submit competent medical evidence establishing, prima facie, that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury to his right shoulder under either the permanent consequential limitation of use or significant limitation of use categories of Insurance Law § 5102(d). One of their examining physicians found significant limitations in the range of motion of that shoulder (see Singleton v F & R Royal, Inc., 166 AD3d 837, 838; Nuñez v Teel, 162 AD3d 1058, 1059; Mercado v Mendoza, 133 AD3d 833, 834; Miller v Bratsilova, 118 AD3d 761). Moreover, the defendants' evidentiary submissions revealed the existence of a triable issue of fact as to whether the alleged injury to that shoulder was caused by the subject accident (see Straussberg v Marghub, 108 AD3d 694, 695; Kearney v Grant, 92 AD3d 725, 726). Since the defendants failed to meet their prima facie burden, it is unnecessary to determine whether the plaintiff's submissions in opposition were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853; Che Hong Kim v Kossoff, 90 AD3d 969, 969). In light of our determination, we need not address the plaintiff's remaining contentions. Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. LEVENTHAL, J.P., MALTESE, BARROS and CONNOLLY, JJ., concur. ENTER: Aprilanne Agostino Clerk of the Court