Court Opinion

ID: 6080533
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-01-13 18:45:23.466773+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:53:11.082120
License: Public Domain

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her *1065brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lebowitz, J.), entered November 20, 2013, as granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that she 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 insofar as appealed from, 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 [2002]; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957 [1992]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was 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 light of our determination, we need not address the defendants’ remaining contentions.
Mastro, J.P., Leventhal, Sgroi and Miller, JJ., concur.