| Becerril v Sol Cab Corp. |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 02885 [50 AD3d 261] |
| April 1, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| Juan Carlos Becerril, Respondent, v Sol Cab Corp. et al.,Appellants. |
—[*1] Law Office of Michael T. Ridge, Port Washington (Michelle S. Russo of counsel), forrespondent.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Wilma Guzman, J.), entered on or about October 25,2007, which denied defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on theground that plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury as defined by Insurance Law § 5102(d), unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk isdirected to enter judgment in favor of defendants dismissing the complaint.
Defendants established a prima facie entitlement to summary judgment by submitting, interalia, the affirmed report of a radiologist who opined that plaintiff's MRI films revealeddegenerative disc disease, and no evidence of post-traumatic injury to the disc structures (see Montgomery v Pena, 19 AD3d288, 289 [2005]). Defendants also submitted plaintiff's deposition testimony, where hestated that he missed no work as a result of his accident.
In opposition, plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether he sustained aserious injury. Although plaintiff submitted an affirmed report from his treating chiropractordetailing the objective testing employed during plaintiff's examination and revealing limitedranges of motion, no adequate explanation was provided that plaintiff's injuries were caused bythe subject accident (see Style vJoseph, 32 AD3d 212, 215 [2006]). Notably, plaintiff conceded at his deposition that hesustained injuries to his neck and back in a prior accident, and an MRI conducted shortly after thesubject accident showed degenerative disc disease. In these circumstances, it was incumbentupon plaintiff to present proof addressing the asserted lack of causation (see Brewster v FTM Servo, Corp., 44AD3d 351, 352 [2007]).
Furthermore, as noted, plaintiff missed no work as a result of the accident, and absentobjective medical evidence, his subjective statements that he was limited in his ability to exerciseor perform personal maintenance were insufficient to establish a serious injury under the 90/180day prong of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see Nelson v Distant, 308 AD2d 338, 340[2003]; Lauretta v County of Suffolk, 273 AD2d 204, 205 [2000], lv denied 95NY2d 770 [2000]).[*2]
We have considered plaintiff's remaining contentions andfind them unavailing. Concur—Lippman, P.J., Tom, Williams and Acosta, JJ.