Bae v CPS Vallejo Limousine, Inc.

Bae v CPS Vallejo Limousine, Inc. 2011 NY Slip Op 01420 Decided on February 22, 2011 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on February 22, 2011
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORKAPPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P.
ANITA R. FLORIO
THOMAS A. DICKERSON
ARIEL E. BELEN
PLUMMER E. LOTT, JJ.
2010-06217
(Index No. 1384/09)

[*1]Minsik Bae, respondent,

v

CPS Vallejo Limousine, Inc., et al., appellants.




Baker, McEvoy, Morrissey & Moskovits, P.C., New York, N.Y.
(Stacy R. Seldin of counsel), for appellants.
John I. Kim, Flushing, N.Y. (Richard C. Bell of counsel), for
respondent.


DECISION & ORDER

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Hart, J.), dated May 24, 2010, 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 reversed, on the law, with costs, and the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.

The defendants met their prima facie burden of showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury to his right shoulder 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; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957; see also Giraldo v Mandanici, 24 AD3d 419). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Giraldo v Mandanici, 24 AD3d 419).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
MASTRO, J.P., FLORIO, DICKERSON, BELEN and LOTT, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Matthew G. Kiernan

Clerk of the Court