Soldano v City of New York (Police Dept.)
2011 NY Slip Op 01826 [82 AD3d 870]
March 8, 2011
Appellate Division, Second Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
As corrected through Wednesday, May 11, 2011


Nicholas Soldano, Respondent, v City of New York (Police Department) et al., Defendants, and Elsiddig Limo, Inc., et al., Appellants. (Action No. 1.) Ruth Jones et al., Plaintiffs,
v
Elsiddig Limo, Inc., et al., Defendants. (Action No. 2.)

[*1] Baker, McEvoy, Morrissey & Moskovits, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Stacy R. Seldin of counsel), for appellants.

Kaplan Belsky Ross Bartell, LLP, Garden City, N.Y. (Lewis A. Bartell of counsel), for respondent.

In related actions to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants Elsiddig Limo, Inc., and Lemine Mohamed appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Miller, J.), dated January 15, 2010, as denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint in action No. 1 insofar as asserted against them on the ground that the plaintiff in that action, Nicholas Soldano, did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly concluded that the appellants failed to meet their prima facie burden of showing that the plaintiff in action No. 1, Nicholas Soldano, 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 NY2d 345 [2002]; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957 [1992]). Since the appellants failed to meet their prima facie burden as movants, we need not review the sufficiency of the opposition papers (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]). Mastro, J.P., Florio, Dickerson, Belen and Lott, JJ., concur.