Makhmudova v. Shohidulsajal
Categories
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Personal injury litigation involving New York's no-fault serious injury threshold and summary judgment procedure in a pedestrian-motor vehicle accident case.
The Supreme Court, Queens County, granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff did not suffer a serious injury under Insurance Law § 5102(d) [defines the serious injury threshold for recovery in motor vehicle accident cases] and, upon reargument, denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on liability as academic.
The Appellate Division reversed the portion of the order that dismissed the complaint and remitted the matter for the trial court to determine the timeliness of the defendants' opposition to the plaintiff's liability motion and to decide that motion on the merits.
The defendants failed to establish prima facie that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury under the 90/180-day category and also failed to show that the plaintiff's left ankle injuries were not caused by the accident.
Background
The plaintiff alleged that she was injured in September 2020 when a vehicle owned and operated by the defendants struck her while she was crossing a street. She sued for personal injuries and later moved for summary judgment on liability. The defendants did not submit opposition before that motion was submitted. The motion was initially denied because the plaintiff had filed a defective affidavit of service. The plaintiff then moved for leave to reargue and submitted a corrected affidavit of service. In response, the defendants opposed the liability motion and separately moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the basis that the plaintiff had not sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d).
Lower Court Decision
The Supreme Court, Queens County, in an order dated December 9, 2022, granted the defendants' serious-injury summary judgment motion and, in effect upon reargument and vacating the earlier order denying the plaintiff's liability motion for defective service, denied the plaintiff's liability motion as academic.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division reversed insofar as appealed from, denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment on serious injury, and remitted the matter to the Supreme Court, Queens County, to determine whether the defendants' opposition to the plaintiff's liability motion was timely and then to determine that motion on the merits.
Legal Significance
The decision reinforces that a defendant moving for summary judgment in a no-fault case bears the initial burden of eliminating triable issues of fact as to each pleaded serious-injury theory. If the defendant fails to address the 90/180-day category adequately or fails to establish lack of causation for a claimed injury, dismissal is improper. The case also shows that where a liability motion was denied on a procedural service defect and later renewed through reargument, the appellate court may remit for consideration of the opposition's timeliness and the merits rather than treating the motion as academic.
A defendant cannot win summary judgment on the no-fault threshold without conclusively addressing all claimed serious-injury categories and causation issues. When that prima facie burden is not met, the complaint survives and related liability issues must still be decided on their merits.