| Diakite v Soderstrom |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 08487 [89 AD3d 607] |
| November 22, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| Mody Diakite, Respondent, v Mark A. Soderstrom et al.,Appellants. |
—[*1] Krentsel & Guzman, LLP, New York (Steven E. Krentsel of counsel), forrespondent.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Kenneth L. Thompson, Jr., J.), entered March 23,2011, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendants' motion for summary judgmentdismissing plaintiff's claims of serious injury of a permanent nature, unanimously reversed, onthe law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgmentdismissing the complaint.
Defendants established prima facie that plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury of apermanent nature by submitting plaintiff's medical records and the affirmed reports of medicalexperts who, upon examination, found that plaintiff had active mobility of his left shoulder andhad recovered from the 2009 vehicular accident without any disability. In opposition, plaintifffailed to raise a triable issue of fact. The limitation in range of motion in his left shoulder foundby his treating physician in November 2010 was insufficient to qualify as "significant," given theotherwise normal shoulder findings. Moreover, one year earlier the physician had found "activemobility of [plaintiff's] left shoulder with no significant pain," and yet no explanation wasoffered for the more recent finding of limitation (see Insurance Law § 5102 [d]; Jno-Baptiste v Buckley, 82 AD3d578 [2011]).
We have reviewed plaintiff's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.Concur—Moskowitz, J.P., Renwick, DeGrasse, Abdus-Salaam and RomÁn, JJ.