| Parise v New York City Tr. Auth. |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 02654 [94 AD3d 839] |
| April 10, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Michael D. Parise, Respondent, v New York City TransitAuthority, Appellant. |
—[*1]
Rosato & Lucciola, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Joseph S. Rosato, Gerard A. Lucciola, and PaulA. Marber of counsel), for respondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from a judgmentof the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kramer, J.), dated July 29, 2010, which, upon a juryverdict in favor of the plaintiff, and upon the denial of its motion pursuant to CPLR 4404 (a) toset aside the verdict and for judgment as a matter of law, is in favor of the plaintiff and against itin the principal sum of $608,000.
Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, with costs, the defendant's motionpursuant to CPLR 4404 (a) to set aside the jury verdict and for judgment as a matter of law isgranted, and the complaint is dismissed.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, no rational jury could havefound that the plaintiff sustained a serious injury under the "90/180-day" category of InsuranceLaw § 5102 (d) (see Lanzarone vGoldman, 80 AD3d 667, 669 [2011]; Nesci v Romanelli, 74 AD3d 765, 766 [2010]). In order to establisha serious injury under this prong of the statute, the plaintiff must establish that he or she "hasbeen curtailed from performing his [or her] usual activities to a great extent" during 90 of the 180days immediately following the subject accident (Licari v Elliott, 57 NY2d 230, 236[1982]; see Insurance Law § 5102 [d]). Here, the plaintiff failed to presentevidence showing that the injuries that he suffered as a result of this accident curtailed him fromperforming his usual and customary activities to a great extent for the requisite period (seeLanzarone v Goldman, 80 AD3d at 669; Nesci v Romanelli, 74 AD3d at 766; Hamilton v Rouse, 46 AD3d 514,516-517 [2007]; Rodriguez v Virga,24 AD3d 650, 652 [2005]; Mercadov Garbacz, 16 AD3d 631, 632 [2005]; Berman v General Elec. Cap Auto, 300AD2d 522 [2002]).
The parties' remaining contentions are without merit or need not be reached in light of ourdetermination. Mastro, A.P.J., Hall, Lott and Sgroi, JJ., concur.