| Nicholson v Allen |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 03879 [62 AD3d 766] |
| May 12, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Tamika Nicholson, Respondent, v Rudolph Allen,Appellant, et al., Defendant. |
—[*1] Kenneth M. Mollins, Melville, N.Y. (Leo Bevolas of counsel), for respondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Rudolph Allen appealsfrom an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Martin, J.), dated March 17, 2008, whichdenied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted againsthim on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning ofInsurance Law § 5102 (d).
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion for summaryjudgment dismissing the complaint is granted.
The defendant Rudolph Allen (hereinafter the defendant) established, prima facie, that theplaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d)as a result of the subject accident through the affirmed medical reports of his examiningneurologist, orthopedist, and radiologist (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d345 [2002]; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955; Staff v Yshua, 59 AD3d 614 [2009]; Geliga v Karibian, Inc., 56 AD3d518 [2008]; O'Shea v Johnson,49 AD3d 614 [2008]; Kivelowitz vCalia, 43 AD3d 1111 [2007]; Porto v Blum, 39 AD3d 614 [2007]). Contrary to the SupremeCourt's determination, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The affidavit of theplaintiff's treating chiropractor was based upon examinations of the plaintiff he made nearly fouryears prior to the motion for summary judgment, and not upon any recent examination (see Diaz v Lopresti, 57 AD3d 832[2008]; Sapienza v Ruggiero, 57AD3d 643 [2008]; Carrillo vDiPaola, 56 AD3d 712 [2008]; Cornelius v Cintas Corp., 50 AD3d 1085 [2008]; Wright v Rodriguez, 49 AD3d532 [2008]). The affidavit also failed to address the findings of the defendant's examiningradiologist that the magnetic resonance images of the plaintiff's lumbar spine, taken three monthsafter the accident, did not reveal any post[*2]-traumatic changes,but only long-standing degenerative conditions (see Ciordia v Luchian, 54 AD3d 708 [2008]; Roman v Fast Lane Car Serv., Inc., 46AD3d 535 [2007]; Khan vFinchler, 33 AD3d 966 [2006]), and failed to acknowledge the fact that the plaintiff hadbeen injured in two prior automobile accidents (see Cornelius v Cintas Corp., 50 AD3d 1085 [2008]; Laurent v McIntosh, 49 AD3d820 [2008]; Wright vRodriguez, 49 AD3d 532 [2008]; Luciano v Luchsinger, 46 AD3d 634 [2007]; Vidor v Davila, 37 AD3d 826[2007]). Furthermore, the plaintiff failed to proffer competent medical evidence that she wasunable to perform substantially all of her daily activities for not less than 90 of the first 180 dayssubsequent to the subject accident (seeLeeber v Ward, 55 AD3d 563 [2008]; Kurin v Zyuz, 54 AD3d 902 [2008]; Jones v Gooding, 50 AD3d 968[2008]; Amato v Fast Repair Inc.,42 AD3d 477 [2007]). Rivera, J.P., Dillon, Covello, Eng and Hall, JJ., concur.