Opinion
2001-10986, 2001-03390
Submitted November 28, 2001.
December 31, 2001.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Satterfield, J.), dated November 27, 2000, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that neither plaintiff sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d).
Ryan, Perrone Hartlein, P.C., Mineola, N Y (Robin Mary Heaney and William T. Ryan of counsel), for appellants.
Howard Raphaelson, New York, N.Y., for respondents.
Before: GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, J.P., DANIEL F. LUCIANO, NANCY E. SMITH, THOMAS A. ADAMS, A. GAIL PRUDENTI, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.
Contrary to the conclusion reached by the Supreme Court, the defendants made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting affirmed medical reports by their examining physicians demonstrating that the plaintiffs did not sustain serious injuries within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d) (see, CPLR 2106; Kallicharan v. Sooknanan, 282 A.D.2d 573; Cole v. Brandofino, 280 A.D.2d 446; Santoro v. Daniel, 276 A.D.2d 478). Thus, it was incumbent upon the plaintiffs 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 medical evidence submitted by the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see, Taylor v. Jerusalem Air, 280 A.D.2d 466; Pierre v. Nanton, 279 A.D.2d 621; Grossman v. Wright, 268 A.D.2d 79; Decayette v. Kreger Truck Renting, 260 A.D.2d 342; Soto v. Fogg, 255 A.D.2d 502; Friedman v. U-Haul Truck Rental, 216 A.D.2d 266).
KRAUSMAN, J.P., LUCIANO, SMITH, ADAMS and PRUDENTI, JJ., concur.