Opinion
2020–06052 Index No. 609178/18
04-05-2023
Eric BARNES, appellant, v. Roldan PAUKAR, et al., respondents.
The Barnes Firm, P.C., Garden City, NY (Robert Seigal, Ellen B. Sturm, and Martha M. Pigott of counsel), for appellant. Kelly, Rode & Kelly, LLP, Mineola, NY (Eric P. Tosca of counsel), for respondents.
The Barnes Firm, P.C., Garden City, NY (Robert Seigal, Ellen B. Sturm, and Martha M. Pigott of counsel), for appellant.
Kelly, Rode & Kelly, LLP, Mineola, NY (Eric P. Tosca of counsel), for respondents.
FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, J.P., ROBERT J. MILLER, PAUL WOOTEN, LILLIAN WAN, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Joseph A. Santorelli, J.), dated July 23, 2020. 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 he allegedly sustained in a motor vehicle accident. 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 July 23, 2020, the Supreme Court granted the motion. The plaintiff appeals.
The defendants met their prima facie burden of demonstrating 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., Inc., 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 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 Amirova v. JND Trans, Inc., 206 A.D.3d 601, 602, 167 N.Y.S.3d 410 ; Gash v. Miller, 177 A.D.3d 950, 111 N.Y.S.3d 200 ; Gouvea v. Lesende, 127 A.D.3d 811, 6 N.Y.S.3d 607 ).
In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The plaintiff's experts failed to address the findings of the defendants’ 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 Amirova v. JND Trans, Inc., 206 A.D.3d at 602, 167 N.Y.S.3d 410 ; Mnatcakanova v. Elliot, 174 A.D.3d 798, 800, 106 N.Y.S.3d 112 ; Zavala v. Zizzo, 172 A.D.3d 793, 794, 99 N.Y.S.3d 354 ; Cavitolo v. Broser, 163 A.D.3d 913, 81 N.Y.S.3d 188 ).
The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit.
CONNOLLY, J.P., MILLER, WOOTEN and WAN, JJ., concur.