| Kivelowitz v Calia |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 06955 [43 AD3d 1111] |
| September 25, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Ruth Kivelowitz, Appellant, v Vito Calia et al.,Respondents. (And a Related Action.) |
—[*1] Robert P. Tusa, Garden City, N.Y. (Shapiro, Beilly, Rosenberg, Aronowitz, Levy & Fox,LLP [Roy J. Karlin] of counsel), for respondent Gasper Hernandez.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by herbrief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Grays, J.), entered June28, 2006, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendants Vito Calia and CathrynCalia-Schrope, and that branch of the separate motion of Gaspar Hernandez, which were forsummary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against each of them on theground that she did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law §5102 (d).
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
In support of their separate motions, inter alia, for summary judgment dismissing thecomplaint, the defendants Vito Calia and Cathryn Calia-Schrope, and the defendant GasparHernandez, relied upon the affirmed reports of Dr. Robert Israel and Dr. Michael Katz, both ofwhom are orthopedists, and the affirmed report of Dr. Jessica Berkowitz, a radiologist (seeGaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957 [1992]). These reports established that the plaintiffdid not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). Thus, thedefendants made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.
In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether she sustained aserious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). Notably, the plaintiff failedto submit any affirmations or affidavits of her treating physicians, or medical records inadmissible form indicating what treatment, if any, she received for her alleged injuries (seeSmith [*2]v Askew, 264 AD2d 834 [1999]).
In light of the foregoing, we need not reach the plaintiff's remaining contention. Schmidt,J.P., Rivera, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.