LEE v. GLICKSMAN

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

It is well settled that a motion for leave to renew and reargue is addressed to the sound discretion of the Supreme Court ( see Daniel Perla Assoc. v. Ginsberg, 256 AD2d 303; Loland v. City of New York, 212 AD2d 674). The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiff's motion for leave to renew and/or reargue.

Moreover, although the defendants made a prima facie showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) ( see Toure v. Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345; Gaddy v. Eyler, 79 NY2d 955), the affirmation of the plaintiff's treating physician submitted upon renewal and reargument in opposition to the defendant's motion was sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, upon renewal and reargument, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment.