Opinion
570581/05.
Decided February 24, 2006.
Defendants appeal from an order of the Civil Court, Bronx County (Mary Ann Brigantti-Hughes, J.), dated May 19, 2004, which denied their cross motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Order (Mary Ann Brigantti-Hughes, J.), dated May 19, 2004, reversed, with $10 costs, defendants' cross motions for summary judgment granted, and complaint dismissed. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.
PRESENT: Suarez, P.J., Davis, Gangel-Jacob, JJ
The affirmed medical reports of defendants' neurologist and orthopedist, detailing the objective tests performed and finding that plaintiff had full range of motion in the affected areas and had recovered from sprain/strain type injuries, together with the affirmation of a radiologist who reviewed plaintiff's MRI films and attested that she had no disc injury, satisfied defendants' burden of establishing, prima facie, that plaintiff did not suffer a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d) ( see Nagbe v. Minigreen Hacking Corp., 22 AD3d 326).
In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise triable issues of fact. Absent from plaintiff's submissions was the lack of any contemporaneous evidence of limitations or restrictions. Although plaintiff was examined soon after the accident, no quantification of her limitations appears in the record. Plaintiff's medical affirmation attests to a range of motion limitation in the context of a single examination conducted 3 ½ years after the accident, too remote in time to be probative ( see Toulson v. Young Han Pae, 13 AD3d 317). Under these circumstances, the allegations of permanence and significance can only be viewed as conclusory and tailored to meet statutory requirements ( see Arjona v. Calcano, 7 AD3d 279). The three year gap in treatment, nowhere explained, is fatal to plaintiff's claim of serious injury ( see Pommells v. Perez, 4 NY3d 566; Perez v. Rodriguez, ___ AD3d ___, 2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 00552 [1st Dept, Jan. 31, 2006]; Colon v. Kempner, 20 AD3d 372).
This constitutes the decision and order of the court.