Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Maureen A. Healy, J.), entered June 30, 2011. The judgment, entered upon separate jury verdicts on the issues of liability and damages, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $60,000.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

On March 22, 2007, plaintiff's vehicle was involved in an automobile accident with a vehicle owned by defendant John Kalicharan and operated by defendant Zaimoon Alli. As a result of the accident, plaintiff allegedly sustained injuries to his right shoulder and to the cervical and lumbar regions of his spine. Plaintiff commenced this action in Supreme Court, alleging, among other things, that the accident had caused him to sustain serious injuries within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). The action was subsequently removed to the Civil Court pursuant to CPLR 325 (d). After a jury trial on the issue of liability resulted in a verdict in favor of plaintiff, the matter proceeded to a jury trial on the issue of damages, where the jury found, among other things, that plaintiff had not sustained a "significant limitation of use of body function or system" but had sustained a "permanent consequential limitation of use of a body [*2]organ or member" (Insurance Law § 5102 [d]), and awarded him damages for past pain and suffering. Defendants' motion to set aside the jury verdict on the issue of damages as inconsistent was denied. Defendants appeal from the judgment which was subsequently entered awarding plaintiff the principal sum of $60,000.

There is no merit to defendants' argument that the jury's verdict was inconsistent because it found that plaintiff had sustained a "permanent consequential limitation of use of a body organ or member" but had not sustained a "significant limitation of use of body function or system" (Insurance Law § 5102 [d]). These are two distinct categories of "serious injury," and plaintiff sustained injuries to several parts of his body. While defendants contend that plaintiff's neck, back and shoulder injuries do not involve a "body organ or member," several courts have either explicitly or implicitly rejected that argument, at least with respect to injuries of the neck and back (see e.g. Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345 [2002]; see also Hwa Soon Um v Hoi Ku Yang, 63 AD3d 686 [2009]; Bonilla v Tortoriello, 62 AD3d 637 [2009]; Williams v Clark, 54 AD3d 942 [2008]; Casey v Mas Transp., Inc., 48 AD3d 610 [2008]; Green v Nara Car & Limo, Inc., 42 AD3d 430 [2007]; Lim v Tiburzi, 36 AD3d 671 [2007]). Indeed, the jury may have separately considered each of plaintiff's injuries in coming to its conclusion that, at least with respect to one or more of the injuries alleged, plaintiff sustained a "permanent consequential limitation of use of a body organ or member" (Insurance Law § 5102 [d]), and a fair interpretation of the evidence supports that conclusion.

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

Solomon, J.P., Pesce and Aliotta, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: July 31, 2013