| Borras v Lewis |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 09877 [79 AD3d 1084] |
| December 28, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Victor Borras, Respondent, v Roderick Lewis et al.,Appellants. |
—[*1] Hoffmaier & Hoffmaier, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Neva Hoffmaier of counsel), forrespondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal, as limited bytheir brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Giacomo, J.),entered March 11, 2010, as denied their cross motion for summary judgment dismissing thecomplaint on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning ofInsurance Law § 5102 (d).
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The plaintiff alleged that he was injured as a result of a motor vehicle accident that occurredon May 9, 2008, in which the bus he was driving was struck by a car driven by the defendantRoderick Lewis, who crossed a double yellow line into oncoming traffic. The defendantscross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff didnot sustain a serious injury pursuant to Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subjectaccident. The Supreme Court, inter alia, denied the defendants' cross motion.
Contrary to the defendants' contention, they failed to meet their prima facie burden ofshowing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law§ 5102 (d) as a result of the subject accident (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98NY2d 345 [2002]; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957 [1992]). In support of theircross motion, the defendants relied upon the affirmed medical report of Menachem Y. Epstein,their examining orthopedist, who noted significant limitations in the plaintiff's left shoulder whenDr. Epstein examined him on August 4, 2009, more than one year after the accident (see Landman v Sarcona, 63 AD3d690 [2009]; Bagot v Singh, 59AD3d 368 [2009]; Hurtte v BudgetRoadside Care, 54 AD3d 362 [2008]; Bentivegna v Stein, 42 AD3d 555 [2007]; Cassandra v Dumond, 31 AD3d476, 477 [2006]). Although Dr. Epstein opined that such limitations resulted from a "failed"shoulder surgery on May 1, 2009, that was not medically necessary, this opinion was conclusory,and thus, without probative value (seeLandman v Sarcona, 63 AD3d 690 [2009]; Powell v Prego, 59 AD3d 417 [2009]).[*2]
Since the defendants failed to establish their prima facieentitlement to judgment as a matter of law, it is unnecessary to consider the sufficiency of theplaintiff's opposition papers (seeTchjevskaia v Chase, 15 AD3d 389 [2005]; Coscia v 938 Trading Corp., 283AD2d 538 [2001]).
Accordingly, the Supreme Court correctly denied the defendants' cross motion for summaryjudgment dismissing the complaint. Skelos, J.P., Dickerson, Belen and Lott, JJ., concur.