| Wei-San Hsu v Briscoe Protective Sys., Inc. |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 06671 [43 AD3d 916] |
| September 11, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Wei-San Hsu, Appellant, v Briscoe Protective Systems,Inc., et al., Respondents. |
—[*1] Epstein, Rayhill & Frankini, Woodbury, N.Y. (Mona C. Haas of counsel), forrespondents.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order ofthe Supreme Court, Queens County (Weiss, J.), entered June 29, 2006, which granted thedefendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that she didnot sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The defendants established, prima facie, their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law bytendering proof in admissible form that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury to her jawwithin the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject accident (seeToure 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. Neither theplaintiff nor her examining dentist adequately explained the lengthy gap in the plaintiff'streatment between her termination of treatment two to three months post-accident and theevaluation by her examining dentist in October 2005 (see Pommells v Perez, 4 NY3d 566, 574 [2005]; Zinger v Zylberberg, 35 AD3d 851[2006]; Hasner v Budnik, 35 AD3d366 [2006]; Caracci v Miller,34 AD3d 515 [2006]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants'motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Rivera, J.P., Spolzino, Fisher, Lifsonand Dickerson, JJ., concur.