Opinion
Submitted May 17, 2000.
July 26, 2000.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Underwood, J.), dated August 16, 1999, 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).
Sanders, Sanders, Block Woycik, P.C., Mineola, N.Y. (Hermann P. Gruber and Michael F. Villeck of counsel), for appellant.
Lewis, Johs, Avallone, Aviles Kaufman, Melville, N.Y. (Dawn DeSimone of counsel), for respondent.
Before: DAVID S. RITTER, J.P., THOMAS R. SULLIVAN, SONDRA MILLER, DANIEL F. LUCIANO, HOWARD MILLER, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The defendant submitted evidence establishing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d). Thus, the burden shifted to the plaintiff to produce proof in admissible form demonstrating the existence of a triable issue of fact (see, Gaddy v. Eyler, 79 N.Y.2d 955, 956-957; Grossman v. Wright, 268 A.D.2d 79; [2d Dept., May 8, 2000]). We agree with the Supreme Court that the evidence submitted by the plaintiff was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see, Dimenshteyn v. Caruso, 262 A.D.2d 348; Russell v. City of Mount Vernon, 256 A.D.2d 454; DiNunzio v. County of Suffolk, 256 A.D.2d 498; Soto v. Fogg, 255 A.D.2d 502; Medina v. Zalman Reis and Assocs., 239 A.D.2d 394; Reeves v. Scopaz, 227 A.D.2d 606; Almonacid v. Meltzer, 222 A.D.2d 631).