Judicial Insight
Back to feed
(case continues for the Sagalas)CivilCourt of AppealsAppeal

Sagala v. Zirs Servs., Inc.

Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided
Sep 30, 2026
Docket
2025-07723
Judges
Not listed
Cited as2026 NY Slip Op 05564
Detailed analysis & 3-line summary

AI breakdown

Analyzed Oct 2, 2026

Where this case stands

  1. Supreme Court, Rockland County: granted dismissing the Sagalas' complaint for lack of serious injury.

  2. This decision · Appeal

    (case continues for the Sagalas)

TL;DR

  1. 1A man and his wife sued a company, claiming serious injuries from a car crash.
  2. 2The court ruled the case should continue as the company didn't prove the injuries weren't serious.
  3. 3Without enough evidence from the company, the court cannot dismiss the case.

Key issues

  1. 1

    Did the defendants prove there was no serious injury?

    Holding · No, the defendants didn't provide sufficient medical evidence to prove no serious injury occurred.

Why it matters

This decision affects whether the man's lawsuit for his injuries will go forward.

The AI breakdown is a reading aid, not legal advice. Always check the opinion for the exact wording.

If you were the judge?

Did a car accident cause serious injury or not?

  1. 1A man says he got injured in a car crash.
  2. 2The company involved claims he wasn't seriously hurt.
  3. 3The court must decide if his injuries are serious enough to continue the case.

Should the case be because the man didn't have a serious injury?

Be the first juror

Parties

  • Appellant

    Sagala

  • Appellee

    Zirs Servs., Inc.

Roles are inferred from the case caption.

Opinion of the court
Sagala v Zirs Servs., Inc. 2026 NY Slip Op 05564 September 30, 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. John D. Sagala, et al., appellants, et al., plaintiffs, v Zirs Services, Inc., et al., respondents. Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department Decided on September 30, 2026 2025-07723, (Index No. 33752/23) Colleen D. Duffy, J.P. Barry E. Warhit Lourdes M. Ventura Lisa S. Ottley, JJ. Adams Law Firm, P.C. (Mitchell Dranow, Sea Cliff, NY, of counsel), for appellants. Baker, McEvoy & Moskovits (Marjorie E. Barnes, Freeport, NY, of counsel), for respondents. [*1] DECISION & ORDER In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs John D. Sagala and Sheri Sagala appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Thomas P. Zugibe, J.), dated June 16, 2025. The order, insofar as appealed from, granted that branch of the defendants' motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted by the plaintiffs John D. Sagala and Sheri Sagala on the ground that the plaintiff John D. Sagala 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 insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and that branch of the defendants' motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted by the plaintiffs John D. Sagala and Sheri Sagala on the ground that the plaintiff John D. Sagala 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 John D. Sagala (hereinafter the injured plaintiff), and his wife, Sheri Sagala (hereinafter together the plaintiffs), suing derivatively, among others, commenced this action against the defendants, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries that the injured plaintiff alleged he sustained while he was a passenger in a motor vehicle which collided with the defendants' vehicle. The defendants moved, among other things, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted by the plaintiffs on the ground that the injured plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d) as a result of the subject accident. The plaintiffs opposed. In an order dated June 16, 2025, the Supreme Court, inter alia, granted that branch of the motion. The plaintiffs appeal. The defendants failed to meet their prima facie burden of showing that the injured 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 failed to submit competent medical evidence establishing, prima facie, that the injured plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury to his head and brain under the permanent consequential limitation of use and significant limitation of use categories (see Prado v Town/Village of Harrison, 244 AD3d 884, 886; Bryan v City of Long Beach, 138 AD3d 774, 776). The defendants [*2]also failed to establish, prima facie, that the injuries to the injured plaintiff's head and brain were not caused by the accident (see Prado v Town/Village of Harrison, 244 AD3d at 886; Petric v Retsina Cab Corp., 235 AD3d 672, 673). Accordingly, since the defendants failed to meet their prima facie burden, the Supreme Court should have denied that branch of the defendants' motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted by the plaintiffs, regardless of the sufficiency of the their opposition papers (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853; Prado v Town/Village of Harrison, 244 AD3d at 886). The parties' remaining contentions are academic in light of our determination. DUFFY, J.P., WARHIT, VENTURA and OTTLEY, JJ., concur. ENTER: Darrell M. Joseph Clerk of the Court
View on CourtListener