From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Marin v. Ieni

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Jul 17, 2013
108 A.D.3d 656 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)

Opinion

2013-07-17

Luis MARIN, appellant, v. Nicola IENI, et al., respondents.

Mark E. Weinberger, P.C., Rockville Center, N.Y. (Marc J. Musman of counsel), for appellant. Richard T. Lau, Jericho, N.Y. (Joseph G. Gallo of counsel), for respondents.



Mark E. Weinberger, P.C., Rockville Center, N.Y. (Marc J. Musman of counsel), for appellant. Richard T. Lau, Jericho, N.Y. (Joseph G. Gallo of counsel), for respondents.
MARK C. DILLON, J.P., L. PRISCILLA HALL, SHERI S. ROMAN, and JEFFREY A. COHEN, JJ.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Jones, Jr., J.), dated August 24, 2012, which granted 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) as a result of the subject accident.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendants met their prima facie burden of showing 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, 746 N.Y.S.2d 865, 774 N.E.2d 1197;Gaddy v. Eyler, 79 N.Y.2d 955, 956–957, 582 N.Y.S.2d 990, 591 N.E.2d 1176). The defendants submitted competent medical evidence establishing, prima facie, that the plaintiff did not sustain any serious injuries to his shoulders or to the cervical or lumbar regions of his spine ( see Fudol v. Sullivan, 38 A.D.3d 593, 594, 831 N.Y.S.2d 504). The defendants also submitted competent medical evidence establishing, prima facie, that any injuries to the cervical or lumbar regions of the plaintiff's spine were not caused by the subject accident ( see Jilani v. Palmer, 83 A.D.3d 786, 787, 920 N.Y.S.2d 424). Finally, the defendants demonstrated, prima facie, that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury under the 90/180–day category of Insurance Law § 5102(d) by submitting the plaintiff's deposition testimony, which demonstrated that he missed only one week of work and returned to his usual duties four weeks after the accident ( see Amato v. Fast Repair Inc., 42 A.D.3d 477, 840 N.Y.S.2d 394). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

Accordingly, the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was properly granted.


Summaries of

Marin v. Ieni

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Jul 17, 2013
108 A.D.3d 656 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)
Case details for

Marin v. Ieni

Case Details

Full title:Luis MARIN, appellant, v. Nicola IENI, et al., respondents.

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Date published: Jul 17, 2013

Citations

108 A.D.3d 656 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)
969 N.Y.S.2d 165
2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 5302

Citing Cases

Wettstein v. Tucker

The defendant submitted competent medical evidence establishing, prima facie, that the alleged injuries to…

Wilson v. Somelofski

The defendants submitted competent medical evidence establishing, prima facie, that the alleged injuries to…