Opinion
570050/08.
Decided December 19, 2008.
Plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Debra Rose Samuels, J.), entered August 22, 2007, which granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Order (Debra Rose Samuels, J.), entered August 22, 2007, affirmed, with $10 costs.
PRESENT: McKeon, P.J., Davis, Heitler, JJ.
Defendant satisfied his burden of establishing prima facie entitlement to summary judgment on the ground that the injured plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d). Defendant submitted the affirmations of an orthopedist and neurologist, who concluded that plaintiff's complaints were subjective, that she had no accident-related disabilities, and that any injuries sustained as a result of the vehicular accident had resolved ( see Perez v Hilarion, 36 AD3d 536). Plaintiffs' submissions in opposition were insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact. Although 11 months after the accident plaintiff's treating physician assigned specific percentages to plaintiff's limitations in range of motion, he failed to describe the tests used to measure the alleged restrictions in range of motion and did not compare the findings to normal ( see Lloyd v Green, 45 AD3d 373; Thompson v Ramnarine, 40 AD3d 360). Plaintiff's 90/180 day claim is belied by her own deposition testimony that she was confined to home for three days and missed only one day of work, and a record otherwise devoid of medical evidence of such an injury ( see Alexander v Garcia, 40 AD3d 274).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.