| Noh v Duffe |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 01628 [70 AD3d 1017] |
| February 23, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Justine Noh et al., Appellants, v Regina M. Duffe,Respondent. |
—[*1] DeSena & Sweeney, LLP, Hauppauge, N.Y. (Shawn P. O'Shaughnessy of counsel), forrespondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiffs appeal from an order ofthe Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCarty, J.), entered November 21, 2008, which grantedthe defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground thatneither of the plaintiffs sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law §5102 (d), and denied, as academic, their cross-motion for leave to file a note of issue.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
Contrary to the plaintiffs' contentions, the defendant established, prima facie, through theaffirmed reports of her expert neurologist, orthopedist, and radiologist, as well as the plaintiffs'deposition testimony, that neither of the plaintiffs sustained a serious injury within the meaningof Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject accident (see Richards vTyson, 64 AD3d 760 [2009]; Berson v Rosada Cab Corp., 62 AD3d 636 [2009];Byrd v J.R.R. Limo, 61 AD3d 801 [2009]). The plaintiffs' submissions were insufficientto raise a triable issue of fact, as the plaintiffs' subjective complaints of pain and limitation ofmotion were unsubstantiated by verified objective medical findings (see Dantini vCuffie, 59 AD3d 490 [2009]; Villeda v Cassas, 56 AD3d 762 [2008]; Ranzie vAbdul-Massih, 28 AD3d 447 [2006]; Lagana v Shamsian, 270 AD2d 313 [2000]).
In light of our determination, it is unnecessary to address the plaintiffs' remaining contention.Dillon, J.P., Miller, Balkin, Leventhal and Austin, JJ., concur.