| Stief v URA, Inc. |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 07833 [89 AD3d 720] |
| November 1, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Bonnie Stief, Respondent, v URA, Inc., et al.,Appellants. |
—[*1] Miller, Montiel & Strano, P.C., Roslyn Heights, N.Y. (David M. Strano of counsel), forrespondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order ofthe Supreme Court, Kings County (Schneier, J.), dated December 17, 2010, which denied theirmotion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff did notsustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d), and granted thatbranch of the plaintiff's cross motion which was for summary judgment on the issue of liability.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The defendants failed to meet their prima facie burden of showing that the plaintiff did notsustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of thesubject accident (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345 [2002]; Gaddy vEyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957 [1992]). The papers the defendants submitted failed toadequately address the plaintiff's claim, set forth in the bills of particulars, that the plaintiffsustained a medically determined injury or impairment of a nonpermanent nature whichprevented her from performing substantially all of the material acts which constituted her usualand customary daily activities for not less than 90 days during the 180 days immediatelyfollowing the subject accident (seeReynolds v Wai Sang Leung, 78 AD3d 919, 920 [2010]).
Since the defendants did not sustain their prima facie burden, it is unnecessary to determinewhether the papers submitted by the plaintiff in opposition were sufficient to raise a triable issueof fact (id.).
Additionally, the plaintiff established her prima facie entitlement to summary judgment onthe issue of liability by submitting evidence that the defendants' vehicle was involved in arear-end collision with her own stopped vehicle (see Giangrasso v Callahan, 87 AD3d 521, 522 [2011]). Thematerial submitted by the defendants in opposition to that branch of the plaintiff's cross motionfailed to raise a triable issue of fact as to the existence of a nonnegligent explanation for therear-end collision (see generally Bates vYasin, 13 AD3d 474 [2004]).
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendants' motion for summary [*2]judgment dismissing the complaint and granted that branch of theplaintiff's cross motion which was for summary judgment on the issue of liability. Mastro, J.P.,Balkin, Chambers and Sgroi, JJ., concur.