| Buntin v Rene |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 02501 [71 AD3d 938] |
| March 23, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Marienella E. Buntin, Appellant, v Luckson Rene et al.,Respondents. (And a Related Action.) |
—[*1] Baker, McEvoy, Morrissey & Moskovits, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Stacy R. Seldin ofcounsel), for respondent Luckson Rene. Picciano & Scahill, P.C., Westbury, N.Y. (Francis J. Scahill and Gilbert J. Hardy ofcounsel), for respondents K. Vasiliades and Helen Sierra.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by herbrief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Agate, J.), enteredFebruary 3, 2009, as, upon renewal, adhered to an original determination in an order entered July24, 2008, granting the respective motions of the defendant Luckson Rene, and the defendants K.Vasiliades and Helen Sierra, which were for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofaras asserted 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 affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs payable tothe defendants appearing separately and filing separate briefs.
The Supreme Court, upon renewal, properly adhered to its original determination grantingthe respective motions of the defendant Luckson Rene, and the defendants K. Vasiliades andHelen Sierra, which were for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as assertedagainst them on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaningof Insurance Law § 5102 (d). The medical report of Dr. Hamid I. Lalani submitted insupport of the plaintiff's motion for leave to renew, which contained the plaintiff's range ofmotion findings shortly after the subject accident, failed to raise a triable issue of fact (seeZuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]). The Supreme Court correctlydetermined that the report was not affirmed, and certification did not cure this defect (seeCPLR 2106; see also Washington vMendoza, 57 AD3d 972 [2008]; Matter of Bronstein-Becher v Becher, 25 AD3d 796, 797 [2006]).Dr. Lalani's other reports, as well as the reports of STZ Chiropractic, P.C., and Ming HuaAcupuncture, P.C., submitted on the motion for leave to renew, also were unaffirmed. Rivera,J.P., Florio, Miller, Chambers and Roman, JJ., concur.