Opinion
No. 2020-01126 Index No. 508101/18
06-01-2022
Tamilia Amirova, appellant, v. JND Trans, Inc., et al., respondents.
The Gekman Law Firm, P.C. (Law Offices of Arnold E. DiJoseph, P.C., New York, NY, of counsel), for appellant. Baker, McEvoy & Moskovits, P.C. (Marjorie E. Bornes, Brooklyn, NY, of counsel), for respondents.
The Gekman Law Firm, P.C. (Law Offices of Arnold E. DiJoseph, P.C., New York, NY, of counsel), for appellant.
Baker, McEvoy & Moskovits, P.C. (Marjorie E. Bornes, Brooklyn, NY, of counsel), for respondents.
BETSY BARROS, J.P. VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON ROBERT J. MILLER JOSEPH A. ZAYAS, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Carl J. Landicino, J.), dated December 6, 2019. The order granted the defendants' 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 affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for personal injuries that she allegedly sustained in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on December 27, 2017. The defendants moved 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. In an order dated December 6, 2019, the Supreme Court granted the defendants' motion, and the plaintiff appeals.
The defendants met their prima facie 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 accident (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 N.Y.2d 345; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 N.Y.2d 955, 956-957). The defendants submitted competent medical evidence establishing, prima facie, that the alleged injuries to the cervical and lumbar regions of the plaintiff's spine and the plaintiff's left shoulder were degenerative in nature and not caused by the accident (see Gash v Miller, 177 A.D.3d 950; Gouvea v Lesende, 127 A.D.3d 811; Fontana v Aamaar & Maani Karan Tr. Corp., 124 A.D.3d 579).
In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The plaintiff's expert failed to address the findings of the defendant's radiologist that the alleged injuries to the cervical and lumbar regions of the plaintiff's spine and the plaintiff's left shoulder were degenerative in nature (see Mnatcakanova v Elliot, 174 A.D.3d 798, 800; Zavala v Zizzo, 172 A.D.3d 793, 794; Cavitolo v Broser, 163 A.D.3d 913, 914).
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
BARROS, J.P., BRATHWAITE NELSON, MILLER and ZAYAS, JJ., concur.