| Innocent v Mensah |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 09274 [56 AD3d 379] |
| November 25, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| Dumescas Innocent, Respondent, v Seth A. Mensah et al.,Appellants, et al., Defendants. |
—[*1] Mitchell Dranow, Mineola, for respondent.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Norma Ruiz, J.), entered April 4, 2008, which deniedthe motion of defendants Seth Mensah and Yahya Karogor for summary judgment dismissing thecomplaint as against them on the ground that plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury as definedby Insurance Law § 5102 (d), unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motiongranted, and the complaint dismissed as against Mensah and Karogor. The Clerk is directed toenter judgment accordingly.
Summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against Mensah and Karogor should havebeen granted where plaintiff's opposition to defendants' prima facie showing that the subjectautomobile accident did not cause plaintiff to sustain a serious injury failed to raise a triable issueof fact. Although plaintiff claimed to be afflicted with continuing pain, and submitted evidence,in the form of MRIs performed two months after the accident, of the existence of herniated andbulging discs, he acknowledged that he only missed a few days from work, did not seek medicaltreatment for any disabling condition, but instead, underwent a limited period of physical therapyand acupuncture treatment (see Rossi vAlhassan, 48 AD3d 270 [2008]).
Proof of a bulging or herniated disc, in the absence of "additional objective medical evidenceestablishing that the accident resulted in significant physical limitations," is insufficient todemonstrate a serious injury (Pommellsv Perez, 4 NY3d 566, 574 [2005]), and plaintiff offered no competent medical proof thatsubstantiated his contention that he could not perform his daily tasks (see Arjona v Calcano, 7 AD3d279, 280 [2004]). Furthermore, the radiologist who interpreted the MRIs made norepresentation that plaintiff's injuries were caused by, or related to, the accident, and plaintiff'sexpert, who examined plaintiff more than three years after the accident, stated his opinion in aconclusory manner without explaining why he believed the injuries were the result of theaccident (id.). Concur—Lippman, P.J., Gonzalez, Moskowitz, Acosta andRenwick, JJ.