Kurtanidze v. Fasino - Personal Injury Appeal

New York Appellate Division

Filed March 11th, 2026

Detected March 12th, 2026

Summary

The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York reversed a lower court's decision, denying a motion for summary judgment in a personal injury case. The court found that the plaintiff's opposition papers should have been considered despite a technical defect in filing.

View original document View source feed page

What changed

The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed an order from the Supreme Court, Kings County, which had granted summary judgment to the defendant Salvatore Fasino. The lower court dismissed the plaintiff's personal injury claim, ruling she did not sustain a serious injury under Insurance Law § 5102(d). The appellate court found that the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion by refusing to consider the plaintiff's opposition papers due to a missing word count certification, stating the court should have overlooked this technical defect.

This decision means the personal injury case will proceed, and the defendant's motion for summary judgment is denied. The appellate court's ruling emphasizes the importance of considering substantive arguments even when minor procedural defects occur. No specific compliance actions are required for regulated entities, but legal professionals involved in similar cases should note the court's stance on procedural leniency when substantive issues are at stake.

What to do next

Review appellate court's reasoning on procedural defects and substantive review.
Ensure all procedural requirements for court filings are met, but be prepared to argue for leniency in exceptional circumstances.

Source document (simplified)

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 11, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Add Note

Kurtanidze v. Fasino

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Citations: 2026 NY Slip Op 01346
Docket Number: Index No. 521493/20
Opinion
Authorities (5)
Cited By (0)
Summaries (0)
Similar Cases (0)
PDF

Combined Opinion

Kurtanidze v Fasino (2026 NY Slip Op 01346)
| Kurtanidze v Fasino |
| 2026 NY Slip Op 01346 |
| Decided on March 11, 2026 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. |

Decided on March 11, 2026
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, J.P.
JANICE A. TAYLOR
LOURDES M. VENTURA
JAMES P. MCCORMACK, JJ.
2023-11152
(Index No. 521493/20)

*[1]Tamar Kurtanidze, appellant,

Salvatore Fasino, respondent, et al., defendant.**

Shakhnevich Law Group P.C., Brooklyn, NY (Steven Shakhnevich and Andrei A. Popescu of counsel), for appellant.

James F. Butler, Jericho, NY (Linda Meisler of counsel), for respondent.

DECISION & ORDER

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Joy F. Campanelli, J.), dated July 19, 2023. The order granted the defendant Salvatore Fasino's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him 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 reversed, on the law, with costs, and the defendant Salvatore Fasino's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him 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 is denied.

The plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for personal injuries that she allegedly sustained in a motor vehicle accident. The defendant Salvatore Fasino (hereinafter the defendant) moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him 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 accident. In an order dated July 19, 2023, the Supreme Court granted the defendant's motion. The plaintiff appeals.

Initially, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in declining to consider the plaintiff's opposition papers on the ground that she failed to submit a word count certification with her opposition as required by 22 NYCRR 202.8-b(c). Under the particular circumstances of this case, the court should have overlooked such a technical defect and considered the opposition (see Anuchina v Marine Transp. Logistics, Inc., 216 AD3d 1126, 1127; see also Abramowitz v Stephen P. Esposito, M.D., P.C., 234 AD3d 652, 654).

The defendant met his prima facie burden of demonstrating 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., Inc., 98 NY2d 345; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957). The defendant submitted competent medical evidence establishing, prima facie, that the alleged injury to the cervical region of the plaintiff's spine did not constitute a serious injury under the significant limitation of use category of Insurance Law § 5102(d) (see Staff v Yshua, 59 AD3d 614). In [2]opposition, however, the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact as to whether she sustained a serious injury to the cervical region of her spine under the significant limitation of use category of Insurance Law § 5102(d) (see Perl v Meher*, 18 NY3d 208).

The parties' remaining contentions either are without merit or need not be reached in light of our determination.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him 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 accident.

BRATHWAITE NELSON, J.P., TAYLOR, VENTURA and MCCORMACK, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Darrell M. Joseph

Clerk of the Court