| Srebnick v Quinn |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 06239 [75 AD3d 637] |
| July 27, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Joel Srebnick, Appellant, v Kathleen Quinn,Respondent. |
—[*1] Richard T. Lau, Jericho, N.Y. (Joseph G. Gallo of counsel), for respondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from a judgmentof the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Jones, Jr., J.), dated July 27, 2009, which, upon an orderof the same court dated April 22, 2009, granting the defendant's motion for summary judgmentdismissing the complaint on the ground that he did not sustain a serious injury within themeaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d), and denying, as academic, his cross motion forsummary judgment on the issue of liability, is in favor of the defendant and against himdismissing the complaint.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The defendant met her prima facie burden by showing that the plaintiff did not sustain aserious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subjectaccident (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345 [2002]; Gaddy vEyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957 [1992]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triableissue of fact as to whether he sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law§ 5102 (d) under the permanent consequential limitation of use and/or the significantlimitation of use categories. The plaintiff failed to proffer any competent medical evidence thatrevealed the existence of any significant limitations in his spine or knees that werecontemporaneous with the subject accident (see Catalano v Kopmann, 73 AD3d 963 [2010]; Bleszcz v Hiscock, 69 AD3d 890[2010]; Taylor v Flaherty, 65 AD3d1328 [2009]; Fung v Uddin, 60AD3d 992 [2009]; Gould vOmbrellino, 57 AD3d 608 [2008]; Kuchero v Tabachnikov, 54 AD3d 729 [2008]; Ferraro v Ridge Car Serv., 49 AD3d498 [2008]).
Since the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant's motion for summary judgmentdismissing the complaint, it properly denied, as academic, the plaintiff's cross motion forsummary judgment on the issue of liability. Dillon, J.P., Santucci, Belen and Sgroi, JJ., concur.