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.

Lyu v. Aleksandr

Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

October 2, 2013

Youn Koo Lyu, appellant,
v.
Kaganov Aleksandr, respondent. Index No. 6458/09

Sim & Park, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Andrew Park of counsel), for appellant.

Rhonda H. Barry, Jericho, N.Y. (Thomas Torto of counsel), for respondent.

DANIEL D. ANGIOLILLO, J.P., L. 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, Kings County (Vaughan, J.), dated June 13, 2012, which granted the defendant's 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, on the law, with costs, and the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.

The defendant failed to meet his prima facie burden of demonstrating 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, 350; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 N.Y.2d 955, 956-957). The defendant's motion papers failed to adequately address the plaintiff's claims, clearly set forth in the bill of particulars, that the plaintiff sustained serious injuries to his knees under the permanent consequential limitation of use and significant limitation of use categories of Insurance Law § 5102(d) (see Bove v Zanelli, 102 A.D.3d 644), and that the plaintiff sustained a serious injury under the 90/180-day category of Insurance Law § 5102(d) (see Reynolds v Wai Sang Leung, 78 A.D.3d 919, 920). Since the defendant failed to meet his prima facie burden, it is unnecessary to determine whether the papers submitted by the plaintiff in opposition were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see generally Stukas v Streiter, 83 A.D.3d 18, 24). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ANGIOLILLO, 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.