Opinion
2012-07-5
Harry JENSON, respondent, v. Catherine H. BROOKE, et al., appellants.
Richard T. Lau, Jericho, N.Y. (Linda Meisler of counsel), for appellants. Terence M. Quinn, St. James, N.Y., for respondent.
Richard T. Lau, Jericho, N.Y. (Linda Meisler of counsel), for appellants. Terence M. Quinn, St. James, N.Y., for respondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Tanenbaum, J.), dated September 27, 2011, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint 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 defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.
The defendants met their prima facie of burden of showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d) as a result of the subject accident ( see Toure v. Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 N.Y.2d 345, 746 N.Y.S.2d 865, 774 N.E.2d 1197;Gaddy v. Eyler, 79 N.Y.2d 955, 956–957, 582 N.Y.S.2d 990, 591 N.E.2d 1176). The defendants submitted evidence establishing, prima facie, that none of the alleged injuries to the cervical and lumbar regions of the plaintiff's spine constituted a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d) ( see Rodriguez v. Huerfano, 46 A.D.3d 794, 795, 849 N.Y.S.2d 275).
In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.