Court Opinion

ID: 5672911
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-01-12 14:17:51.807841+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:39:40.494487
License: Public Domain

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jackson, J.), dated March 6, 2003, which 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).
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 affirmation of the plaintiffs physician submitted in opposition to the defendant’s motion failed to establish that any of the identified limitations were of a significant nature (see Trotter v Hart, 285 AD2d 772 [2001]; Williams v Ciaramella, 250 AD2d 763 [1998]; Cabri v Myung-Soo Park, 260 AD2d 525 [1999]; Waldman v Dong Kook Chang, 175 AD2d 204 [1991]; Medina v Zalmen Reis & Assoc., 239 AD2d 394 [1997]), and was otherwise inadequate to raise a triable issue of fact.
Accordingly, the defendants were entitled to summary judg*652ment in their favor dismissing the complaint. Santucci, J.P., Smith, Luciano and Adams, JJ., concur.