Miller v. Singh
Opinion
It appears you are using Adblock. Please disable Adblock to best experience our website.
Bureau Thomas J.K. Smith, State Reporter
Miller v Singh
May 20, 2026
Appellate Division, Second Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
Quashon Miller, respondent,
v
Malkit Singh, et al., appellants.
Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Decided on May 20, 2026
2024-12457, (Index No. 535167/22)
Betsy Barros, J.P.
Linda Christopher
Carl J. Landicino
Laurence L. Love, JJ.
Law Office of Jerome D. Patterson, P.C. (Antonio Marano, Commack, NY, of counsel), for appellants.
DECISION & ORDER
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Francois A. Rivera, J.), dated October 18, 2024. The order denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint 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.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for personal injuries that he allegedly sustained in a motor vehicle accident. The defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint 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. In an order dated October 18, 2024, the Supreme Court denied the motion. The defendants appeal.
The defendants failed to meet their prima facie burden of showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d) as a result of the accident (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957). The defendants' submissions failed to eliminate triable issues of fact regarding the plaintiff's claims that he sustained a serious injury under the 90/180-day category of Insurance Law § 5102(d) (see Che Hong Kim v Kossoff, 90 AD3d 969; Rouach v Betts, 71 AD3d 977; see also Richards v Tyson, 64 AD3d 760, 761).
The defendants' remaining contentions either are without merit or need not be reached in light of our determination.
BARROS, J.P., CHRISTOPHER, LANDICINO and LOVE, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Darrell M. Joseph
Clerk of the Court
Links to or from other sites do not signify endorsement or relationship with them.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.