| Paula v Natala |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 03491 [61 AD3d 944] |
| April 28, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Jenny Paula, Respondent, v Javier Natala, Defendant, andPaula Ernesto et al., Appellants. |
—[*1] Harmon, Linder, & Rogowsky, New York, N.Y. (Mitchell Dranow of counsel), forrespondent. Richard T. Lau, Jericho, N.Y. (Gene W. Wiggins of counsel), for defendant JavierNatala.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants Paula Ernesto andAlberto Tavarez appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lewis, J.), datedSeptember 12, 2008, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaintinsofar as asserted against them on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injurywithin the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
Although the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter oflaw (see Luckey v Bauch, 17 AD3d411 [2005]; Sims v Megaris,15 AD3d 468 [2005]; Check vGacevk, 14 AD3d 586 [2005]), the plaintiff submitted sufficient evidence in oppositionto raise a triable issue of fact as to whether she sustained a serious injury. The plaintiff'sobjective medical evidence included affirmations from the physician who treated her in themonths following the accident, as well as from the physician who examined her in response tothe motion for summary judgment. The physicians, inter alia, quantified their findings of reducedranges of motion in the plaintiff's cervical spine and lumbar spine (compare Caracci v Miller, 34 AD3d515 [2006]). Moreover, the plaintiff adequately explained the two-year gap from the timeher medical treatments had stopped to the time she was [*2]re-examined for purposes of the motion for summary judgment (see Gibson v Tordoya, 44 AD3d1000 [2007]; Black v Robinson, 305 AD2d 438, 439-440 [2003]). Mastro, J.P.,Fisher, Miller, Dickerson and Chambers, JJ., concur.