Opinion
2003-07271.
Decided June 28, 2004.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dollard, J.), dated July 17, 2003, which granted the defendant's 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).
Resnick Braunstein, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Eric R. Bernstein and Benjamin R. Tessler of counsel), for appellant.
Michele A. Vitali, East Elmhurst, N.Y. (E. Richard Vieira of counsel), for respondent.
Before: MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, J.P., GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, BARRY A. COZIER, PETER B. SKELOS, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The defendant made a prima facie showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d) as a result of the subject motor vehicle accident through the submission of the plaintiff's deposition testimony and medical records, and the affirmed medical report of the defendant's examining physician ( see Toure v. Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 N.Y.2d 345; Gaddy v. Eyler, 79 N.Y.2d 955). The affirmation of the plaintiff's physician submitted in opposition to the defendant's motion was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact. The limitations in the plaintiff's rotational movement of her cervical spine were of an insignificant nature ( see Trotter v. Hart, 285 A.D.2d 772; Williams v. Ciaramella, 250 A.D.2d 763; Cabri v. Myung-Soo Park, 260 A.D.2d 525; Medina v. Zalmen Reis Assocs., 239 A.D.2d 394; Waldman v. Dong Kook Chang, 175 A.D.2d 204).
Moreover, the plaintiff failed to submit any competent medical evidence to support her claim that she was unable to perform substantially all of her daily activities for not less than 90 of the first 180 days after the subject accident as a result of the accident ( see Sainte-Aime v. Ho, 274 A.D.2d 569; Jackson v. New York City Tr. Auth., 273 A.D.2d 200; Greene v. Miranda, 272 A.D.2d 441; Arshad v. Gomer, 268 A.D.2d 450; Bennet v. Reed, 263 A.D.2d 800; DiNunzio v. County of Suffolk, 256 A.D.2d 498, 499).
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
ALTMAN, J.P., GOLDSTEIN, SCHMIDT, COZIER and SKELOS, JJ., concur.