The case arose due to an automobile accident between the plaintiff and the defendants. At some point after the accident, the plaintiff filed suit against the defendants, and set forth allegations including that the defendants were negligent and caused the accident, and that the plaintiff sustained injuries/damages. During the pre-trial process, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment which requested dismissal of the case as, the defendants' contended, the plaintiff's injuries were not "permanent" and therefore no "serious injuries" existed as a matter of law. A Queens County Supreme Court Justice agreed with the defendants' position, and granted the motion, and the plaintiff thereby appealed.
The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed - thereby restoring the case - and the decision included the following: "In opposition, however, the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact as to whether she sustained a serious injury to the cervical and lumbar regions of her spine under the significant limitation of use category of Insurance Law 5102(d) [citing Perl v. Meher, 18 NY3d 208]. Contrary to the defendants' contention, Insurance Law 5102(d) does not expressly set forth any temporal requirement for the significant limitation of use category and a 'significant limitation' need not be permanent in order to constitute a serious injury [citing Vasquez v. Almanzar, 107 AD3d 538; Estrella v. GEICO Ins. Co., 102 AD3d 730]."
Salvatore R. Marino, Esq.
No comments:
Post a Comment