| Malave v Basikov |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 08418 [45 AD3d 539] |
| November 7, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Andre Malave, Appellant, v Victor Basikov et al.,Respondents. |
—[*1] Baker, McEvoy, Morrissey & Moskovits, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Michael I. Josephs andAdams & DiStefano, LLP, of counsel), for respondents.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order ofthe Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCarty, J.), dated August 4, 2006, which granted thedefendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that theplaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The defendants met their prima facie burden on their motion for summary judgment byestablishing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of InsuranceLaw § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject accident (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys.,98 NY2d 345 [2002]; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955 [1992]; see also Meyers v Bobower Yeshiva BneiZion, 20 AD3d 456 [2005]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue offact. The plaintiff principally relied upon the submission of voluminous unaffirmed reports anduncertified medical records, which were without any probative value (see Rodriguez v Cesar, 40 AD3d731, 732-733 [2007]). The affirmation of the plaintiff's treating physician also lacked anyprobative value since he relied on unaffirmed reports of others (see Furrs v Griffith, 43 AD3d 389[2007]; Phillips v Zilinsky, 39AD3d 728 [2007]; Porto v Blum,39 AD3d 614, 615 [2007]), and failed to compare any of his own findings on range ofmotion to what is normal (see Nociforov Penna, 42 AD3d 514, 515 [2007]; McNulty v Buglino, 40 AD3d 591 [2007]). Crane, J.P., Ritter,Fisher, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.