Trim v New York City Transit Authority
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Whether defendants met their prima facie burden for summary judgment on New York Insurance Law § 5102(d) [defines categories of "serious injury" that a plaintiff must establish to recover non-economic damages in motor vehicle accidents under the No-Fault scheme].
Granted defendants' motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint for failure to establish a serious injury.
The grant of summary judgment to all defendants on the serious-injury threshold.
Defendants failed to make a prima facie showing because their submissions did not adequately address plaintiff's claimed right-wrist injury under the permanent consequential limitation or significant limitation of use categories; therefore, the motions should have been denied regardless of the sufficiency of plaintiff's opposition (citing Toure v Avis, Gaddy v Eyler, and Winegrad v NYU Med. Ctr.).
Background
Plaintiff alleged personal injuries from a motor vehicle accident and served a supplemental bill of particulars asserting a serious right-wrist injury. Two defense groups—the New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA) and Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) group with Cesar E. Matias and Star Cruiser Transportation, and the separate Sangov/Mustafokulov defendants—moved for summary judgment arguing plaintiff did not sustain a "serious injury" within Insurance Law § 5102(d).
Lower Court Decision
The Supreme Court, Kings County, granted both defense motions, dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within Insurance Law § 5102(d).
Appellate Division Reversal
Reversed on the law. The Appellate Division held that neither defense group met its prima facie burden because their papers did not adequately address the claimed right-wrist injury under the permanent consequential limitation or significant limitation of use categories. The court denied the motions regardless of the sufficiency of plaintiff's opposition and awarded one bill of costs to respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.
Legal Significance
Reaffirms that a defendant moving for threshold summary judgment under Insurance Law § 5102(d) must specifically and adequately address each claimed injury and each invoked category of serious injury set out in the pleadings or supplemental bill of particulars. Failure to do so mandates denial of the motion irrespective of the plaintiff's opposition (Winegrad principle).
On a serious-injury threshold motion, defendants must confront every claimed injury and category—omission as to even one (here, the right wrist under permanent/significant limitation) defeats prima facie proof and requires denial of summary judgment.