Summary
granting defendants' summary judgment motion because "plaintiff's treating physician failed to provide objective evidence of the extent or degree of the alleged physical limitations of the plaintiff's leg or arm that were caused by the subject accident"
Summary of this case from Jones v. U.S.Opinion
Submitted January 17, 2001.
February 13, 2001.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Satterfield, J.), dated March 21, 2000, as granted the defendants' cross 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).
Koenig Samberg, Rockville Centre, N.Y. (Arnold Koenig of counsel), for appellant.
Before: DAVID S. RITTER, J.P., GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, ANITA R. FLORIO, SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
In support of their cross motion for summary judgment, the defendants submitted evidence in admissible form establishing 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, Gaddy v. Eyler, 79 N.Y.2d 955; Bocci v. Turkowitz, 255 A.D.2d 476). The plaintiff's opposition papers failed to raise a triable issue of fact with respect thereto. The plaintiff's subjective complaints of headaches, backaches, and leg pain were insufficient to defeat the defendants' motion (see, Tabacco v. Kasten, 229 A.D.2d 526; Barrett v. Howland, 202 A.D.2d 383; Oswald v. Ospina, 187 A.D.2d 570). Furthermore, the plaintiff's treating physician failed to provide objective evidence of the extent or degree of the alleged physical limitations of the plaintiff's leg or arm that were caused by the subject accident (see, Greene v. Miranda, 272 A.D.2d 441; Grossman v. Wright, 268 A.D.2d 79; Guzman v. Michael Mgt., 266 A.D.2d 508). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants' cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.