| Avrashkova v Paul |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 08170 [44 AD3d 976] |
| October 30, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Alina Avrashkova, Respondent, v Tricia L. Paul,Appellant, et al., Defendant. |
—[*1] Igor A. Orak, LLC (Ben Lyhovsky, Brooklyn, N.Y., of counsel), for respondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Tricia L. Paul appealsfrom an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Solomon, J.), dated January 31, 2007, whichdenied her motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted againsther on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning ofInsurance Law § 5102 (d).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
On her motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted againsther, the defendant Tricia L. Paul (hereinafter the appellant), failed to establish, prima facie, thatthe plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d) (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345 [2002]; Gaddy v Eyler, 79NY2d 955 [1992]). The appellant relied on various medical reports which showed significantlimitations in the plaintiff's spine (see Jenkins v Miled Hacking Corp., 43 AD3d 393[2007]; Bentivegna v Stein, 42 AD3d 555 [2007]; Zamaniyan v Vrabeck, 41AD3d 472 [2007]; Brown v Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp., 33 AD3d 832 [2006]).Furthermore, the report of the appellant's examining orthopedist noted range of motion findingsconcerning the cervical and lumbar regions of the plaintiff's spine, and the plaintiff's left knee,without comparing those findings to what is deemed normal (see Nociforo v Penna, 42AD3d 514 [2007]; McNulty v Buglino, 40 AD3d 591 [2007]; Osgood v Martes,39 AD3d 516 [2007]; McLaughlin v Rizzo, 38 AD3d 856 [2007]; Bluth vWorldOmni Fin. Corp., 38 AD3d 817 [2007]; Harman v Busch, 37 AD3d 537[2007]).[*2]
Since the appellant failed to establish her prima facieentitlement to judgment as a matter of law, it is unnecessary to consider whether the plaintiff'spapers submitted in opposition to the motion were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact(see Coscia v 938 Trading Corp., 283 AD2d 538 [2001]). Santucci, J.P., Goldstein,Dillon and Angiolillo, JJ., concur.