| Govori v Agate Corp. |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 07817 [44 AD3d 821] |
| October 16, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Elira Govori, Respondent, v Agate Corp. et al., Appellants,et al., Defendants. |
—[*1] Steven Smith, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Louis A. Badolato of counsel), for respondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants Agate Corp. andCarboni Benjamin appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much an order of the Supreme Court,Kings County (Saitta, J.), dated February 8, 2007, as denied their motion for summary judgmentdismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them on the ground that the plaintiff did notsustain 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, themotion of the defendants Agate Corp. and Carboni Benjamin for summary judgment dismissingthe complaint insofar as asserted against them is granted.
The defendants Agate Corp. and Carboni Benjamin established their prima facie entitlementto judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating, through the affirmations of their medicalexperts and the deposition testimony of the plaintiff, that the plaintiff did not sustain a seriousinjury 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, 79NY2d 955 [1992]; see also Meyers vBobower Yeshiva Bnei Zion, 20 AD3d 456 [2005]).
In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The plaintiff's hospitalrecords and magnetic resonance imaging reports were without probative value since they [*2]were neither affirmed nor certified (see Rodriguez v Cesar, 40 AD3d731, 732 [2007]; Mejia v DeRose,35 AD3d 407, 408 [2006]), the affirmation of the plaintiff's treating physician waswithout probative value since the conclusions were reached in reliance upon the unsworn reportsof others (see Furrs v Griffith, 43AD3d 389, 390 [2007]; Phillips vZilinsky, 39 AD3d 728, 729 [2007]; Porto v Blum, 39 AD3d 614, 615 [2007]), and the plaintiff'saffidavit was insufficient to overcome these deficiencies (see Garcia v Solbes, 41 AD3d 426, 427 [2007]; Fisher vWilliams, 289 AD2d 288, 289 [2001]). Schmidt, J.P., Spolzino, Skelos, Lifson andMcCarthy, JJ., concur.