| Gochnour v Quaremba |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 00342 [58 AD3d 680] |
| January 20, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Adam Gochnour et al., Respondents, v Philip T.Quaremba, Appellant. |
—[*1] Joseph D'Amico, Staten Island, N.Y., for respondents.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from anorder of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Maltese, J.), dated October 26, 2007, whichdenied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted by theplaintiff Sandra Gochnour-DeBernardo on the ground that she did not sustain a serious injurywithin the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the defendant's motion forsummary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted by the plaintiff SandraGochnour-DeBernardo on the ground that she did not sustain a serious injury within the meaningof Insurance Law § 5102 (d) is granted.
The defendant met his prima facie burden of showing that the plaintiff SandraGochnour-DeBernardo (hereinafter the plaintiff) did not sustain a serious injury within themeaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject accident (see Toure vAvis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345 [2002]; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955 [1992]).In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. While the plaintiff's treatingphysician indicated, in his affirmation, that he found a limited range of motion in her cervicaland lumbar spine when he examined the plaintiff shortly after the accident, he failed to provideany quantified findings to support his assertions (see Fiorillo v Arriaza, 52 AD3d 465, 466 [2008]; Duke v Saurelis, 41 AD3d 770,771 [2007]). Moreover, although the physician stated [*2]that hehad observed bulging discs in the magnetic resonance imaging films and report of the plaintiff'sspine, the mere existence of a bulging disc is not conclusive 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 (seePommells v Perez, 4 NY3d 566, 574 [2005]; Sealy v Riteway-1, Inc., 54 AD3d 1018 [2008]; Kearse v New York City Tr. Auth., 16AD3d 45, 50 [2005]). Finally, in the absence of any competent medical evidence, theplaintiff's self-serving affidavit was insufficient to demonstrate the existence of a serious injury(see Duke v Saurelis, 41 AD3d770 [2007]). Rivera, J.P., Florio, Angiolillo, McCarthy and Chambers, JJ., concur.[See 2007 NY Slip Op 33531(U).]