| Rivera v Honey Express Cab Corp. |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 01574 [70 AD3d 578] |
| February 25, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| Jose Rivera, Appellant, v Honey Express Cab Corp. et al.,Respondents. |
—[*1] Baker, McEvoy, Morrissey & Moskovits, P.C., New York (Stacy R. Seldin of counsel), forrespondents.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paul Wooten, J.), entered February 10, 2009,which granted defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimouslyaffirmed, without costs.
Plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact in opposition to defendants' prima facie showing thathe did not suffer a serious injury of either a permanent or a nonpermanent nature. While hisexperts quantified his losses in range of motion in 2007 and 2008 and opined that he sufferedpermanent injuries that were caused by the subject car accident, none of the experts providedrange of motion assessments contemporaneous with the 2003 accident (see Mullings v Huntwork, 26 AD3d214, 216 [2006]). Moreover, none of the experts addressed plaintiff's 1986 back injury (see Pommells v Perez, 4 NY3d566, 574-575, 579-580 [2005]).
The motion court properly rejected the unsworn report by plaintiff's chiropractor (see Shinn v Catanzaro, 1 AD3d195, 197-198 [2003]), which in any event provided no range of motion assessmentscontemporaneous with the accident.
As to plaintiff's 90/180-day claim, his bill of particulars and deposition testimony indicatedthat he was not confined to bed and home and did not miss any work following the accident.However, in his affidavit in opposition to the motion, plaintiff failed to raise a question of fact.[*2]
We have considered plaintiff's remaining contentions andfind them unavailing. Concur—Gonzalez, P.J., Mazzarelli, Nardelli, Acosta andAbdus-Salaam, JJ. [Prior Case History: 2009 NY Slip Op 30280(U).]