| Kurin v Zyuz |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 07091 [54 AD3d 902] |
| September 23, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Andriy Kurin et al., Respondents, v Oleksandr B. Zyuz,Defendant, and Christine Damiani et al., Appellants. |
—[*1] William Pager, Brooklyn, N.Y. (James Benintend of counsel), for plaintiffs-respondents. Richard T. Lau, Jericho, N.Y. (Gene W. Wiggins of counsel), for plaintiff on thecounterclaim Serguei Ibraguimov.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants Christine Damiani andJohn Damiani appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lewis, J.),dated March 30, 2007, as denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaintinsofar as asserted against them on the ground that none of the plaintiffs sustained a seriousinjury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).
Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, the appellants'motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them isgranted, and upon searching the record, summary judgment is awarded to the defendantOleksandr B. Zyuz dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him; and it is further,
Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the appellants.
Contrary to the Supreme Court's determination, the defendants Christine Damiani and JohnDamiani (hereinafter the appellants) established a prima facie case that none of the plaintiffssustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see Toure vAvis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345, 352 [2002]; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955,956-957 [1992]; see Mager v Cooney,50 AD3d 648 [2008]). In particular, the plaintiffs' depositions revealed that none ofthem missed more than five days from work or school, and that they were not medicallyprevented from performing their usual and customary activities (see Insurance Law§ 5102 [d]). The affirmed medical reports of the appellants' medical experts, whoexamined the plaintiffs, concluded they were not seriously injured as a result of the accident, andthe reported injuries were the result of degenerative disorders.
In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Morris v Edmond, 48 AD3d432, 433 [2008]). The plaintiffs failed to submit a sworn or affirmed medical report fromtheir treating physician finding injuries contemporaneous with the accident (see Grasso vAngerami, 79 NY2d 813 [1991]; Patterson v NY Alarm Response Corp., 45 AD3d 656 [2007]; Verette v Zia, 44 AD3d 747[2007]). Their medical expert Dr. Mark Kostin physically examined each plaintiff on only oneoccasion nearly six years after the accident. While Dr. Kostin found significant limitations in theplaintiffs' range of motion, such findings were clearly not contemporaneous with the subjectaccident (see Morris v Edmond, 48 AD3d at 433; D'Onofrio v Floton, Inc., 45 AD3d 525 [2007]; Rodriguez v Cesar, 40 AD3d 731,732 [2007]). Moreover, the plaintiffs failed to proffer competent medical evidence that any ofthem sustained a medically-determined injury of a nonpermanent nature which prevented them,for 90 of the 180 days following the subject accident, from performing their usual and customaryactivities (see Morales v Daves, 43AD3d 1118 [2007]; Rodriguez v Cesar, 40 AD3d at 733; Sainte-Aime v Ho,274 AD2d 569, 570 [2000]).
Although the defendant Oleksandr B. Zyuz did not file a notice of appeal, we search therecord pursuant to CPLR 3212 (b) (see Dunham v Hilco Constr. Co., 89 NY2d 425, 430[1996]; Merritt Hill Vineyards v Windy Hgts. Vineyard, 61 NY2d 106 [1984]), andaward summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him on the groundthat the plaintiffs did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law §5102 (d) as a result of the subject accident (see Morris v Edmond, 48 AD3d at 433;Wilson v Buffa, 294 AD2d 357, 358 [2002]). Fisher, J.P., Balkin, McCarthy andChambers, JJ., concur.