ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The third-party defendant met its burden of proving, by competent admissible evidence (see Gaddy v. Eyler, 79 N.Y.2d 955; Fitzpatrick v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 285 A.D.2d 487), that the injured plaintiff did not sustain a "grave injury" within the meaning of Workers' Compensation Law § 11 (see Dunn v. Smithtown Bancorp, 286 A.D.2d 701; Fitzpatrick v. Chase Manhattan Bank, supra; Curran v. Auto Lab Serv. Ctr., 280 A.D.2d 636). In opposition to the motion, the existence of a triable issue of fact was demonstrated. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the third-party defendant's motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint based on this issue.
RITTER, J.P., KRAUSMAN, McGINITY and LUCIANO, JJ., concur.