Irizarry v. Lindor

• Decision Date: 16 October 2013
• Citation: 2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 06659,110 A.D.3d 846,973 N.Y.S.2d 296
• Parties: David IRIZARRY, respondent, v. Tamara LINDOR, et al., appellants, et al., defendant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

110 A.D.3d 846
973 N.Y.S.2d 296
2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 06659

David IRIZARRY, respondent,
v.
Tamara LINDOR, et al., appellants, et al., defendant.

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

Oct. 16, 2013.

[973 N.Y.S.2d 297]

Picciano & Scahill, P.C., Westbury, N.Y. (Francis J. Scahill and Andrea E. Ferrucci of counsel), for appellants.

Irwin & Poznanski, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Joshua Brian Irwin of counsel), for respondent.

WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., MARK C. DILLON, THOMAS A. DICKERSON and LEONARD B. AUSTIN, JJ.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants Tamara Lindor and Daniella Blanchard appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kramer, J.), dated May 10, 2012, as granted the plaintiff's motion for leave to reargue his opposition to their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them 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, which had been granted in an order of the same court dated September 8, 2011, and, upon reargument, vacated the determination in the order dated September 8, 2011, granting those branches of their motion which were for summary judgment dismissing, insofar as asserted against them, so much of the complaint as alleged that the plaintiff sustained a permanent loss of use of a body organ, member, function, or system, a permanent consequential limitation of use of a body organ or member, and a significant limitation of use of a body function or system, and thereupon denied those branches of their motion.

ORDERED that the order dated May 10, 2012, is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof, upon reargument, vacating the determination in the order dated September 8, 2011, granting those branches of the motion of the defendants Tamara Lindor and Daniella Blanchard which were for summary judgment dismissing, insofar as asserted against them, so much of the complaint as alleged that the plaintiff sustained a permanent loss of use of a body organ, member, function, or system, a permanent consequential limitation of use of a body organ or member, and a significant limitation of use of a body function or system and thereupon denying those branches of their motion, and substituting therefor a provision, upon reargument, adhering to the determination in the order dated September 8, 2011, granting those branches of their motion which were for summary judgment dismissing, insofar as asserted against them, so much of the complaint as alleged that the plaintiff sustained a permanent loss of use of a body organ,...