| Verette v Zia |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 07688 [44 AD3d 747] |
| October 9, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Shanika C. Verette, Respondent, v Khawja T. Zia et al.,Appellants. |
—[*1]
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal, as limited bytheir brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Partnow, J.), datedOctober 31, 2006, as denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on theground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law§ 5102 (d).
Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and thedefendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.
The defendants 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]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The plaintiff'sreliance on uncertified hospital records and unaffirmed magnetic resonance imaging reportsfailed to raise a triable issue of fact since those submissions were without probative value (see Nociforo v Penna, 42 AD3d514 [2007]; Rodriguez v Cesar,40 AD3d 731 [2007]; Phillips vZilinsky, 39 AD3d 728 [2007]; Mejia v DeRose, 35 AD3d 407 [2006]). The affirmed medicalreport of the plaintiff's treating physician was also without probative value as she relied on theunsworn reports of others in reaching her conclusions about the plaintiff (see Phillips v Zilinsky, 39 AD3d728 [2007]; Porto v Blum, 39AD3d 614 [2007]; Iusmen vKonopka, 38 AD3d 608 [2007]). The self-serving affidavit of the plaintiff, on its own,failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether she sustained a serious injury (see Garcia v Solbes, 41 AD3d 426[2007]; Felix v New York City Tr.Auth., 32 AD3d 527 [2006]; Fisher v Williams, 289 AD2d 288 [2001]).Moreover, the plaintiff failed to adequately explain the essential [*2]cessation of her physical therapy treatment five to six monthspostaccident (see Pommells v Perez,4 NY3d 566 [2005]; Berktas vMcMillian, 40 AD3d 563 [2007]; Waring v Guirguis, 39 AD3d 741 [2007]; Phillips v Zilinsky, 39 AD3d 728[2007]). Lastly, the plaintiff failed to submit any competent medical evidence that the injuries shesustained in the accident caused her to be unable to perform substantially all of her dailyactivities for not less than 90 of the first 180 days subsequent to the subject accident (see Nociforo v Penna, 42 AD3d514 [2007]; Felix v New York CityTr. Auth., 32 AD3d 527 [2006]; Sainte-Aime v Ho, 274 AD2d 569 [2000]).Rivera, J.P., Krausman, Florio, Carni and Balkin, JJ., concur.