Opinion
2001-02693
Submitted November 21, 2001.
January 28, 2002.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (LeVine, J.), dated September 5, 2000, which denied their 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).
Norman Volk Associates, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Michael I. Josephs of counsel), for appellants.
Daniel D. Kim, New York, N.Y., for respondent.
Before: SONDRA MILLER, J.P., CORNELIUS J. O'BRIEN, LEO F. McGINITY, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, SANDRA L. TOWNES, JJ.
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.
The defendants made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence demonstrating that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d) (see, Kallicharan v. Sooknanan, 282 A.D.2d 573; Santoro v. Daniel, 276 A.D.2d 478). Thus, it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to come forward with admissible evidence to raise a triable issue of fact (see, Gaddy v. Eyler, 79 N.Y.2d 955, 956-957). The plaintiff failed to do so (see, Grossman v. Wright, 268 A.D.2d 79; Smith v. Askew, 264 A.D.2d 834; Soto v. Fogg, 255 A.D.2d 502; Friedman v. U-Haul Truck Rental, 216 A.D.2d 266), and accordingly, the defendants are entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
S. MILLER, J.P., O'BRIEN, McGINITY, SCHMIDT and TOWNES, JJ., concur.