In <i>Kharzis v. PV Holding Corp</i>., et al., the plaintiff-passenger sustained injuries in a motor vehicle collision involving a car owned by the defendants. The defendants moved for and were granted summary judgment on the basis that the plaintiff had not sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d). The Second Department subsequently reversed the trial court’s decision, citing the defendants’ neurological expert report that concluded that the plaintiff sustained sprains of the lumbar and cervical spine, as well as significant limitations in range of motion, casually related to the underlying accident. Thus, the sufficiency or lack thereof of the plaintiff’s opposition made no difference; indeed, the defendants’ very own expert attributed serious injuries, within the meaning of the Insurance Law, that warranted denial of the summary judgment motion.
Thanks to Lora Gleicher for her contribution to this post.