| Lopez v Eades |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 03965 [84 AD3d 523] |
| May 12, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| Rose Marie Lopez, Respondent, v Allen Eades,Appellant. |
—[*1] Pazer, Epstein & Jaffe, P.C., New York (Matthew J. Fein of counsel), forrespondent.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Robert E. Torres, J.), entered July 8, 2010, whichdenied defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the thresholdissue of serious injury under Insurance Law § 5102 (d), unanimously reversed, on the law,without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in defendant'sfavor dismissing the complaint.
Defendant met his initial burden of establishing prima facie that plaintiff did not sustain aserious injury, by submitting the affirmed report of an orthopedic surgeon detailing the objectivetests he performed on examination, his finding that plaintiff had full range of motion in her rightwrist and right ankle, and his conclusion that plaintiff had no ongoing impairment resulting fromthe accident (see Christian v Waite,61 AD3d 581 [2009]). Defendant also submitted the affirmed reports of a radiologist whoreviewed MRIs taken within months after the accident and found no evidence of traumatic injury.
Plaintiff failed to proffer an adequate explanation for the six-year cessation of treatmentfollowing two physical therapy sessions (see Antonio v Gear Trans Corp., 65 AD3d 869, 870-871 [2009]; Eichinger v Jone Cab Corp., 55 AD3d364, 364-365 [2008]).
Plaintiff's 90/180-day claim is refuted by admissions in her verified bill of particulars and[*2]deposition testimony that she was confined to bed for onlyone day and missed less than 45 days of work (see Williams v Baldor Specialty Foods, Inc., 70 AD3d 522 [2010]).She offered no competent medical proof to substantiate this claim. Concur—Gonzalez,P.J., Tom, Andrias, Moskowitz and Freedman, JJ.