Opinion
No. 571040/12.
2013-02-26
Violete PALEVIC, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. INFINITY LIVERY SERVICES, CORP., Basil Jones, Defendants–Respondents, and Joan Seymour and Dennis Gordon, Defendants.
Plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Robert R. Reed, J.), entered June 1, 2012, which granted the motion of defendants Infinity Livery Services, Corp. and Basil Jones for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them.
Present: TORRES, J.P., SCHOENFELD, SHULMAN, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Order (Robert R. Reed, J.), entered June 1, 2012, affirmed, with $10 costs.
Defendants-appellants established prima facie that plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d). Defendants' moving submission included, inter alia, a radiologist's opinion that changes in the lumbar spine shown in an MRI of the then 35–year old plaintiff were degenerative and preexisted the vehicular accident ( see Roach v. Citywide Mobile Response Corp., 102 AD3d 576, 2013 WL 322662 [1st Dept 2013] ) and a neurologist's report finding a normal range of motion of the cervical spine and a mild limitation of range of motion of the lumbar spine, the latter finding determined to be “subjective” in light of the otherwise normal neurological examination ( see Santos v. Taveras, 55 AD3d 405 [2008] ). In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact. The MRI reports, doctors' reports and medical records relied upon by plaintiff were in inadmissible form and therefore lacked probative value ( see Rampersaud v. Eljamali, 100 AD3d 508, 509 [2012];Offman v. Singh, 27 AD3d 284, 284–285 [2006] ). The medical report submitted by plaintiff's treating physician (Dr. Tuluca), to the extent admissible, failed to raise a triable issue as to causation, since the doctor did not address or explain why plaintiff's prior injuries and degenerative condition were ruled out as the cause of her current alleged limitations ( see Rampersaud v. Eljamali, 100 AD3d at 509). Absent admissible evidence of injury or causation, plaintiff's 90/180–day claim also fails ( see id.) Upon searching the record, we grant defendants Seymour and Gordon summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them, since plaintiff cannot meet the serious injury threshold ( see Merritt Hill Vineyards v. Windy Hgts. Vineyard, 61 N.Y.2d 106, 110–112 [1984] ).