Court Opinion

ID: 8210063
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-09-28 19:06:50.583006+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:41:47.414086
License: Public Domain

Adolphus v Marchiony (2022 NY Slip Op 05304)

Adolphus v Marchiony

2022 NY Slip Op 05304

Decided on September 28, 2022

Appellate Division, Second Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on September 28, 2022
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

HECTOR D. LASALLE, P.J.
ROBERT J. MILLER
LARA J. GENOVESI
LILLIAN WAN, JJ.

2019-08435
 (Index No. 607252/17)

[*1]Albert Adolphus, appellant, 
vGlen L. Marchiony, respondent. Mallilo & Grossman, Flushing, NY (Lorenzo Tasso of counsel), for appellant.

Kelly, Rode & Kelly, LLP, Mineola, NY (Eric P. Tosca of counsel), for respondent.

DECISION & ORDER
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (James P. McCormack, J.), entered June 25, 2019. The order 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) as a result of the subject accident.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for personal injuries that he allegedly sustained in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on April 10, 2017. The defendant moved 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) as a result of the accident. In an order entered June 25, 2019, the Supreme Court granted the defendant's motion, and the plaintiff appeals.
The defendant met his 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 accident (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957). The defendant submitted competent medical evidence establishing that the alleged injury to the lumbar region of the plaintiff's spine did not constitute a serious injury under either the permanent consequential limitation of use or significant limitation of use categories of Insurance Law § 5102(d) (see Staff v Yshua, 59 AD3d 614). The defendant also submitted competent medical evidence establishing, prima facie, that the alleged injury to the cervical region of the plaintiff's spine was not caused by the accident (see Gash v Miller, 177 AD3d 950; Gouvea v Lesende, 127 AD3d 811; Fontana v Aamaar & Maani Karan Tr. Corp., 124 AD3d 579). In addition, the defendant demonstrated, prima facie, that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury under the 90/180-day category of Insurance Law § 5102(d) (see John v Linden, 124 AD3d 598, 599; Marin v Ieni, 108 AD3d 656, 657; Richards v Tyson, 64 AD3d 760, 761). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Mnatcakanova v Elliot, 174 AD3d 798, 800; Zavala v Zizzo, 172 AD3d 793, 794; Cavitolo v Broser, 163 AD3d 913, 914; Estrella v GEICO Ins. Co., 102 AD3d 730, 731-732).
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant's motion for [*2]summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
LASALLE, P.J., MILLER, GENOVESI and WAN, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Maria T. Fasulo
Clerk of the Court