| Morales v Daves |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 06961 [43 AD3d 1118] |
| September 25, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Tania Morales, Appellant, v Wanda Daves,Respondent. |
—[*1] DeSena & Sweeney, LLP, Hauppauge, N.Y. (Shawn P. O'Shaughnessy of counsel), forrespondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order ofthe Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated August 3, 2006, which granted thedefendant's 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 defendant established, prima facie, that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injurywithin 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]; see also Kearse v NewYork City Tr. Auth., 16 AD3d 45 [2005]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise atriable issue of fact. The affidavit of the plaintiff's treating chiropractor, while noting recent rangeof motion limitations in the cervical and lumbar regions of her spine, failed to proffer anyevidence establishing that the plaintiff sustained any range of motion limitations in those regionsof her spine roughly contemporaneous with the subject accident (see Borgella v D & L Taxi Corp., 38AD3d 701, 702 [2007]; Iusmen vKonopka, 38 AD3d 608, 609 [2007]; Earl v Chapple, 37 AD3d 520, 521 [2007]; Zinger v Zylberberg, 35 AD3d851, 852 [2006]; Felix v New YorkCity Tr. Auth., 32 AD3d 527, 528 [2006]). The plaintiff's submission of magneticresonance imaging reports showing disc bulges and/or herniations did not establish a seriousinjury in the absence of objective evidence of the extent of the alleged physical limitations [*2]resulting from the disc injury and its duration (see Mejia v DeRose, 35 AD3d407, 407-408 [2006]; Yakubov vCG Trans Corp., 30 AD3d 509, 510 [2006]; Cerisier v Thibiu, 29 AD3d 507, 508 [2006]; Bravo v Rehman, 28 AD3d 694,695 [2006]; Kearse v New York City Tr.Auth., 16 AD3d 45 [2005]; Diaz v Turner, 306 AD2d 241, 242 [2003]).
The plaintiff also failed to submit any competent medical evidence that she was unable toperform substantially all of her daily activities for not less than 90 of the first 180 dayssubsequent to the subject accident (seeNociforo v Penna, 42 AD3d 514 [2007]; Felix v New York City Tr. Auth., 32AD3d at 528; Sainte-Aime v Ho, 274 AD2d 569, 570 [2000]). Santucci, J.P., Goldstein,Dillon and Angiolillo, JJ., concur.