| Raleigh v Ram |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 01787 [60 AD3d 747] |
| March 10, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Dallas Raleigh, Respondent, v Roda Ram et al.,Appellants, et al. Defendant. |
—[*1] Adam D. White, New York, N.Y., for respondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants Roda Ram and SatwantSingh appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Taylor, J.), dated August 4,2008, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar asasserted against them on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within themeaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion of the defendantsRoda Ram and Satwant Singh for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar asasserted against them is granted.
The appellants submitted an affirmation of their examining physician stating that, basedupon his examination of the plaintiff, it was his opinion that the plaintiff had no permanentinjury, limitation, or restriction. The physician tested the range of motion of, inter alia, theplaintiff's left shoulder, and found it to be normal. Moreover, he set forth the specifics of hismeasurements as well as the norms against which he compared them. Together with theremaining evidence submitted by the appellants, this was sufficient to establish the appellants'prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955[1992]; Luckey v Bauch, 17 AD3d411 [2005]; Sims v Megaris,15 AD3d 468 [2005]; Check vGacevk, 14 AD3d 586 [2005]).
The plaintiff's submissions in opposition failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Significantly,[*2]the plaintiff's primary physician failed to reconcile herconclusion that the plaintiff sustained a tear to his left shoulder, which concomitantly limited theshoulder's range of motion, with the operative report of the orthopedic surgeon who performedarthroscopic surgery on the left shoulder two months after the accident, who not only found nolimitations of motion, but also found no evidence of a tear or other condition attributable to theaccident (see Carrillo v DiPaola, 56AD3d 712 [2008]; Vishnevsky vGlassberg, 29 AD3d 680 [2006]; Doyle v Renz, 297 AD2d 719 [2002]).
Accordingly, the appellants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofaras asserted against them should have been granted. Mastro, J.P., Fisher, Florio and Eng, JJ.,concur.