Court Opinion

ID: 2802359
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-05-20 20:08:04.048317+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:29:08.660006
License: Public Domain

Messina v Anvarzadeh (2015 NY Slip Op 04287)

Messina v Anvarzadeh

2015 NY Slip Op 04287

Decided on May 20, 2015

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 May 20, 2015
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

PETER B. SKELOS, J.P.
THOMAS A. DICKERSON
L. PRISCILLA HALL
JOSEPH J. MALTESE, JJ.

2014-05620
 (Index No. 17029/10)

[*1]John Messina, appellant, 
vArmaghan Anvarzadeh, et al., respondents.

Pillinger Miller Tarallo, LLP, Elmsford, N.Y. (David E. Hoffberg of counsel), for appellant.
Ryan Perrone & Hartlein, P.C., Mineola, N.Y. (Robin Mary Heaney and William T. Ryan 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, Nassau County (Winslow, J.), entered April 2, 2014, 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) as a result of the subject accident.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
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; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957). The defendants submitted competent medical evidence establishing, prima facie, that the alleged injury to the cervical region of the plaintiff's spine did not constitute a serious injury under 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 defendants further submitted evidence demonstrating, prima facie, that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury under the 90/180-day category of Insurance Law § 5102(d) (see Karpinos v Cora, 89 AD3d 994, 995). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
SKELOS, J.P., DICKERSON, HALL and MALTESE, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Aprilanne Agostino
Clerk of the Court