Court Opinion

ID: 6345896
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-06-01 19:08:09.90862+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:15:09.271320
License: Public Domain

Amirova v JND Trans, Inc. (2022 NY Slip Op 03489)

Amirova v JND Trans, Inc.

2022 NY Slip Op 03489

Decided on June 1, 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 June 1, 2022
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

BETSY BARROS, J.P.
VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON
ROBERT J. MILLER
JOSEPH A. ZAYAS, JJ.

2020-01126
 (Index No. 508101/18)

[*1]Tamilia Amirova, appellant, 
vJND Trans, Inc., et al., respondents.

The Gekman Law Firm, P.C. (Law Offices of Arnold E. DiJoseph, P.C., New York, NY, of counsel), for appellant.
Baker, McEvoy & Moskovits, P.C. (Marjorie E. Bornes, Brooklyn, NY, of counsel), for respondents.

DECISION & ORDER
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Carl J. Landicino, J.), dated December 6, 2019. The order granted the defendants' 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 she allegedly sustained in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on December 27, 2017. The defendants 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 subject accident. In an order dated December 6, 2019, the Supreme Court granted the defendants' motion, and the plaintiff appeals.
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 accident (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957). The defendants submitted competent medical evidence establishing, prima facie, that the alleged injuries to the cervical and lumbar regions of the plaintiff's spine and the plaintiff's left shoulder were degenerative in nature and 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 opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The plaintiff's expert failed to address the findings of the defendant's radiologist that the alleged injuries to the cervical and lumbar regions of the plaintiff's spine and the plaintiff's left shoulder were degenerative in nature (see Mnatcakanova v Elliot, 174 AD3d 798, 800; Zavala v Zizzo, 172 AD3d 793, 794; Cavitolo v Broser, 163 AD3d 913, 914).
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants' motion for [*2]summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
BARROS, J.P., BRATHWAITE NELSON, MILLER and ZAYAS, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Maria T. Fasulo
Clerk of the Court