| Patterson v NY Alarm Response Corp. |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 09005 [45 AD3d 656] |
| November 13, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Marie Patterson, Appellant, v NY Alarm Response Corp. etal., Respondents. |
—[*1] Cheven, Keely & Hatzis, New York, N.Y. (Mayu Miyashita of counsel), forrespondents.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by herbrief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Price, J.), dated June 14,2006, as granted that branch of the defendants' motion which was for summary judgmentdismissing the complaint on the ground that she did not sustain a serious injury within themeaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The defendants met their prima facie burden of showing that the plaintiff did not sustain aserious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subjectaccident (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345 [2002]; Gaddy vEyler, 79 NY2d 955 [1992]; seealso Meyers v Bobower Yeshiva Bnei Zion, 20 AD3d 456 [2005]).
In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Initially, all of the plaintiff'ssubmissions, with the exception of the Riverside Health System records, the plaintiff's magneticresonance imaging (hereinafter MRI) reports, and the medical report of Dr. Alice Chen datedApril 16, 2003, were without probative value since those submissions consisted of eitheruncertified records or unaffirmed medical reports (see Rodriguez v Cesar, 40 AD3d 731 [2007]; Mejia v DeRose, 35 AD3d 407[2006]).
The plaintiff's MRI reports, and Dr. Chen's report of April 16, 2003, merely showed that asof those dates, the plaintiff had disc herniations at C3-4, C5-6, L5-S1, disc protrusions at L4-5and C2-3, disc bulges at C6-7 and L3-4, and cervical radiculitis at C5-6. The mere existence of aherniated or bulging disc, and even radiculopathy, is not evidence of a serious injury in theabsence of objective evidence of the extent of the alleged physical limitations resulting from thedisc injury and its duration (see Mejia vDeRose, 35 AD3d 407 [2006]; Yakubov v CG Trans Corp., 30 AD3d 509 [2006]; Cerisier v Thibiu, 29 AD3d 507[2006]; Bravo v Rehman, 28 AD3d694 [2006]; Kearse v New YorkCity Tr. Auth., 16 AD3d 45 [2005]; Diaz v Turner, 306 AD2d 241 [2003]; see also Furrs v Griffith, 43 AD3d389 [2007]). Schmidt, J.P., Spolzino, Skelos, Lifson and McCarthy, JJ., concur.