| Roman v Fast Lane Car Serv., Inc. |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 09572 [46 AD3d 535] |
| December 4, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Edwin Roman, Respondent, v Fast Lane Car Service, Inc.,et al., Appellants. |
—[*1] Yankowitz Law Firm, P.C., Great Neck, N.Y. (Jack Yankowitz of counsel), forrespondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order ofthe Supreme Court, Kings County (Schack, J.), dated February 16, 2007, which denied theirmotion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint 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, on the law, with costs, and the defendants' motion forsummary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.
The defendants established their prima facie entitlement to summary judgment by showingthat the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law §5102 (d) as a result of the subject accident (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d345 [2002]; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957 [1992]; see also Kearse v New York City Tr.Auth., 16 AD3d 45, 49-50 [2005]; Meyers v Bobower Yeshiva Bnei Zion, 20 AD3d 456 [2005]). Inopposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The plaintiff principally relied uponthe affidavit of his treating physician Dr. Emil Stracar, which incorporated therein many of hisreports. Dr. Stracar concluded in his affidavit that, as a result of the subject accident, the plaintiffsustained significant and permanent injuries to the cervical and lumbar regions of his spine. Dr.Stracar failed to address, however, the findings of the defendants' examining radiologist that theinjuries to the plaintiff's cervical and lumbar regions of his spine were the result of preexistingdegenerative disc disease and were unrelated to the [*2]subjectaccident. This omission rendered speculative Dr. Stracar's conclusions that the cervical andlumbar injuries and limitations he noted in his affidavit were the result of the subject accident (see Giraldo v Mandanici, 24 AD3d419 [2005]; Lorthe v Adeyeye, 306 AD2d 252 [2003]; Pajda v Pedone, 303AD2d 729 [2003]; Ginty v MacNamara, 300 AD2d 624 [2002]).
The magnetic resonance imaging reports on the cervical and lumbar regions of the plaintiff'sspine were insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact since they merely noted that as of April2004 the plaintiff had bulging and herniated discs in his cervical spine, and a malalignment ofL5-S1. The mere existence of a herniated or bulging disc 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 York City Tr. Auth., 16 AD3d at 50; Diaz vTurner, 306 AD2d 241 [2003]). The plaintiff's self-serving affidavit did not raise a triableissue of fact (see Fisher v Williams, 289 AD2d 288, 289 [2001]). The plaintiff also failedto proffer competent medical evidence that he sustained a medically-determined injury of anonpermanent nature which prevented him, for 90 of the 180 days following the subject accident,from performing his usual and customary activities (see Sainte-Aime v Ho, 274 AD2d569 [2000]). Santucci, J.P., Goldstein, Dillon and Angiolillo, JJ., concur.