Case Name: Errol Layne, Respondent, v. Ivan Drouillard et al., Appellants
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2009-09-22
Citations: 65 A.D.3d 1197
Docket Number: 
Parties: Errol Layne, Respondent, v Ivan Drouillard et al., Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 65
Pages: 1197–1199

Head Matter:
Errol Layne, Respondent, v Ivan Drouillard et al., Appellants.
[885 NYS2d 540]

Opinion:
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Solomon, J.), dated December 18, 2008, which denied their 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).
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.
The defendants met their prima facie burden of showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject accident (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345 [2002]; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957 [1992]). The defendants' examining doctors set forth, in their affirmed medical reports, that the plaintiff had a full range of motion in his cervical and lumbar spine based on objective range of motion tests, wherein the numerical findings were compared to what is normal. In addition, the defendants submitted deposition testimony of the plaintiff showing that the plaintiff resumed his duties as a New York City police officer, passed medical and physical examinations, and attended the police academy to become a police officer in another jurisdiction. During this time, the plaintiff engaged in rigorous activities which included running, sit-ups, and pushups (see Kasim v Defretias, 28 AD3d 611 [2006]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Santucci, Leventhal and Lott, JJ., concur.