| Gellis v Singho |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 01209 [92 AD3d 720] |
| February 14, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| Marysue Leven Gellis, Respondent, v Gaunha Q. Singho et al., Appellants. |
—[*1]
Levine & Grossman, Mineola, N.Y. (Steven Sachs of counsel), for respondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Walsh II, J.), entered May 13, 2011, which denied their 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).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) to her brain or the cervical region of her spine 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]; see also Matthews v Cupie Transp. Corp., 302 AD2d 566 [2003]).
In opposition, the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact as to whether she sustained a serious injury to her brain under the permanent consequential limitation of use category of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject accident (see Perl v Meher, 18 NY3d 208 [2011]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied 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). Dillon, J.P., Florio, Chambers and Roman, JJ., concur.