Summary
This Appellate Division decision reverses a trial court order granting summary judgment in favor of a defendant in a personal injury action. The appellate court determined that the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact regarding whether he sustained a serious injury under New York Insurance Law § 5102(d), relying on expert testimony about permanent consequential limitations of use to his lumbar spine. Accordingly, the court denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the plaintiff sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law §5102(d) sufficient to defeat summary judgment
- Whether the trial court erred in granting summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint
Holdings
- The appellate division reversed the summary‑judgment order, holding that the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact as to whether he sustained a serious injury under §5102(d).
Key quotations
“The order granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the amended 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.” (at beginning)
“Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the amended 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.” (later)
Factual background
James Aragoncillo was injured in a motor‑vehicle collision. He alleges a serious injury to the lumbar spine, asserting permanent consequential limitation of use. The defendant contended that the injury did not meet the statutory definition of a "serious injury" under Insurance Law §5102(d).
Procedural history
The plaintiff filed an action for personal injuries arising from a motor vehicle accident. The trial court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law §5102(d). The plaintiff appealed the summary‑judgment order.