Opinion
December 9, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Lehner, J.).
The IAS Court properly granted summary judgment to defendant, who predicated his motion, inter alia, upon plaintiff's bill of particulars, plaintiff's deposition testimony, and a medical report prepared at the behest of plaintiff. These submissions established that there is no merit to plaintiff's claim of "serious injury" within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see, Craft v Brantuk, 195 A.D.2d 438). Moreover, plaintiff's opposing affidavits failed to rebut that showing, since complaints of recurrent pain and repetition of the word "permanent" do not suffice to establish a question of fact concerning "serious injury", at least in the absence of medical affidavits or medical diagnostic tests demonstrating that the purported limitations suffered by plaintiff were objectively measured or quantified (see, Forte v Vaccaro, 175 A.D.2d 153). Thus, the action was properly dismissed.
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Rosenberger, Ross and Nardelli, JJ.