Summary
This Appellate Division, Second Department decision affirms a trial court order granting the defendants' motion for summary judgment in a personal injury action. The court determined that the defendants satisfied their prima facie burden of demonstrating that the plaintiffs did not sustain a "serious injury" under New York Insurance Law § 5102(d). The plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition, largely due to their expert's failure to specify the methodology used to measure range of motion. Accordingly, the dismissal of the complaint was upheld.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the plaintiffs sustained a "serious injury" within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d) for purposes of summary judgment.
Holdings
- The appellate court affirmed the summary‑judgment dismissal, holding that the plaintiffs did not sustain a serious injury as defined by Insurance Law § 5102(d).
Factual background
The plaintiffs sued to recover damages for personal injuries sustained when their vehicle collided with a vehicle driven by Alexander P. Ermita Alejandrino and owned by Paul L. Alejandrino. The plaintiffs alleged injuries but the defendants presented medical evidence that the injuries did not meet the statutory definition of a "serious injury" under Insurance Law § 5102(d).
Procedural history
The Supreme Court, Kings County granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on August 5, 2023, finding the plaintiffs did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d). The plaintiffs appealed to the Appellate Division, Second Department.