| Ciordia v Luchian |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 06791 [54 AD3d 708] |
| September 9, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Manuel Ciordia et al., Respondents, v Daniela Luchian etal., Appellants. |
—[*1] Baker, McEvoy, Morrissey & Moskovits, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Holly E. Peck of counsel),for appellants Daniela Luchian and Kazi Asaduzzaman. Russo, Darnell & Lodato, LLP, East Meadow, N.Y. (Adam W. Weiss of counsel), forrespondents.
In action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants Daniela Luchian and KaziAsaduzzaman appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court,Kings County (Jacobson, J.), dated October 26, 2007, as denied their motion for summaryjudgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them on the ground that neither ofthe plaintiffs sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d),and the defendant Sabir Brdarevic separately appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of thesame order as denied his separate motion for the same relief.
Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with one bill of costspayable to the appellants appearing separately and filing separate briefs, and the defendants'separate motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint are granted.
The defendants made a prima facie showing that neither of the plaintiffs sustained a seriousinjury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject motorvehicle accident in June 2005 (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345 [2002];Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957 [1992]). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raisea triable issue of fact (see D'Alba v[*2]Yong-Ae Choi, 33 AD3d 650 [2006]). Crucially, theaffirmed reports of the plaintiffs' examining physicians failed to address the findings of thedefendants' examining radiologist, which attributed the condition of the plaintiffs' lumbosacralspines to degenerative processes (id. at 651). The plaintiffs also failed to proffercompetent medical evidence that they were unable to perform substantially all of their dailyactivities for not less than 90 of the first 180 days subsequent to the accident (see Letellier vWalker, 222 AD2d 658 [1995]). Mastro, J.P., Florio, Dickerson and Belen, JJ., concur.