Court Opinion

ID: 5790750
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-01-12 18:09:02.433836+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:42:15.483584
License: Public Domain

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 *797Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957 [1992]; see also Kearse v New York City Tr. Auth., 16 AD3d 45, 49-50 [2005]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The medical submissions of Dr. Donald M. Kastenbaum were insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact since they were unaffirmed (see Grasso v Angerami, 79 NY2d 813 [1991]; Uribe-Zapata v Capallan, 54 AD3d 936 [2008]; Choi Ping Wong v Innocent, 54 AD3d 384 [2008]; Patterson v NY Alarm Response Corp., 45 AD3d 656 [2007]; Verette v Zia, 44 AD3d 747 [2007]; Nociforo v Penna, 42 AD3d 514 [2007]; Pagano v Kingsbury, 182 AD2d 268 [1992]). Moreover, the plaintiff failed to adequately explain the cessation of his medical treatment after 2004 (see Pommells v Perez, 4 NY3d 566 [2005]; Shaji v City of New Rochelle, 66 AD3d 760 [2009]; Ciancio v Nolan, 65 AD3d 1273 [2009]). Furthermore, the plaintiff failed to submit competent medical evidence that the injuries he allegedly sustained as a result of the subject accident rendered him unable to perform substantially all of his daily activities for not less than 90 days of the first 180 days thereafter (see Ponciano v Schaefer, 59 AD3d 605 [2009]; Sainte-Aime v Ho, 274 AD2d 569 [2000]). Dillon, J.E, Miller, Eng, Hall and Sgroi, JJ., concur.