Case ID: ad3d_7/html/0510-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jenice L. Simmons, Appellant, v Matthew S. Garofalo et al., Respondents.
    [775 NYS2d 598]
   In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (O’Connell, J.), dated September 17, 2003, which granted the defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that she did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) and denied as academic her motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendants 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 (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345 [2002]; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955 [1992]). The affirmations of the plaintiff’s physicians submitted in opposition to the motion failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

Moreover, the plaintiff failed to submit any competent medical evidence supporting her claim that she was unable to perform substantially all of her daily activities for not less than 90 of the first 180 days following the accident as a result of the subject accident (see Sainte-Aime v Ho, 274 AD2d 569 [2000]; Jackson v New York City Tr. Auth., 273 AD2d 200 [2000]; Greene v Miranda, 272 AD2d 441 [2000]; Arshad v Gomer, 268 AD2d 450 [2000]; Bennett v Reed, 263 AD2d 800 [1999]; DiNunzio v County of Suffolk, 256 AD2d 498, 499 [1998]).

Accordingly, the defendants were properly granted summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Santucci, J.P., Smith, Luciano and Adams, JJ., concur.