Opinion
Submitted September 20, 2000.
October 16, 2000.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Dunn, J.), dated October 27, 1999, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the injured plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d).
Kelly, Rode Kelly, LLP (Rivkin, Radler Kremer, LLP, Uniondale, N Y [Evan H. Krinick, Cheryl F. Korman, and Jack D. Jordan] of counsel), for appellants.
Perry Schwarz, P.C., New York, N.Y. (David M. Schwarz of counsel), for respondents.
Before: CORNELIUS J. O'BRIEN, J.P., THOMAS R. SULLIVAN, GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.
The defendants met their initial burden of establishing that the injured plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d), and thus, it was incumbent upon the plaintiffs to come forward with admissible evidence to create an issue of fact (see, Gaddy v. Eyler, 79 N.Y.2d 955, 956-957). The plaintiffs failed to do so (see, Cabri v. Myung-Soo Park, 260 A.D.2d 525; Dyagi v. Newburgh Auto Auction, 251 A.D.2d 619; Friedman v. U-Haul Truck Rental, 216 A.D.2d 266), and accordingly, the defendants' motion should have been granted.