Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Marin v. Ieni

Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

July 17, 2013

Luis Marin, appellant,
v.
Nicola Ieni, et al., respondents. Index No. 1487/11

Mark E. Weinberger, P.C., Rockville Center, N.Y. (Marc J.Musman of counsel), for appellant.

Richard T. Lau, Jericho, N.Y. (Joseph G. Gallo of counsel), for respondents.

MARK C. DILLON, J.P., PRISCILLA HALL, SHERI S. ROMAN, JEFFREY A. COHEN, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Jones, Jr., J.), dated August 24, 2012, which 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 affirmed, with costs.

The defendants met 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 N.Y.2d 345; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 N.Y.2d 955, 956-957). The defendants submitted competent medical evidence establishing, prima facie, that the plaintiff did not sustain any serious injuries to his shoulders or to the cervical or lumbar regions of his spine (see Fudol v Sullivan, 38 A.D.3d 593, 594). The defendants also submitted competent medical evidence establishing, prima facie, that any injuries to the cervical or lumbar regions of the plaintiff's spine were not caused by the subject accident (see Jilani v Palmer, 83 A.D.3d 786, 787). Finally, the defendants demonstrated, prima facie, that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury under the 90/180-day category of Insurance Law § 5102(d) by submitting the plaintiff's deposition testimony, which demonstrated that he missed only one week of work and returned to his usual duties four weeks after the accident (see Amato v Fast Repair Inc., 42 A.D.3d 477). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

Accordingly, the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was properly granted.

DILLON, J.P., HALL, ROMAN and COHEN, JJ., concur.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.