Opinion
2003-02815
Submitted October 8, 2003.
November 10, 2003.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Polizzi, J.), dated February 26, 2003, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d).
Murray Lemonik, Jericho, N.Y. (Kathleen M. Geiger of counsel), for appellants.
Stuart M. Kerner, P.C., Bronx, N.Y. (John Grill of counsel), for respondent.
Before: MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, J.P., SONDRA MILLER, LEO F. McGINITY, THOMAS A. ADAMS, WILLIAM F. MASTRO, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.
The defendants made a prima facie showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d) as a result of the subject motor vehicle accident ( see Toure v. Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 N.Y.2d 345; Gaddy v. Eyler, 79 N.Y.2d 955). The affirmations of the plaintiff's physicians submitted in opposition to the defendants' motion failed to establish that any of the identified limitations in movement were of a significant nature ( see Trotter v. Hart, 285 A.D.2d 772; Williams v. Ciaramella, 250 A.D.2d 763; Cabri v. Myung-Soo Park, 260 A.D.2d 525; Waldman v. Dong Kook Chang, 175 A.D.2d 204; Medina v. Zalmen Reis Assocs., 239 A.D.2d 394).
Moreover, the plaintiff's statement that he was unable to return to work for three months following the accident was not supported by any competent medical evidence that he was unable to perform substantially all of his daily activities for not less than 90 of the first 180 days as a result of the subject accident ( see Sainte-Aime v. Ho, 274 A.D.2d 569; Jackson v. New York City Tr. Auth., 273 A.D.2d 200; Greene v. Miranda, 272 A.D.2d 441; Arshad v. Gomer, 268 A.D.2d 450; Bennet v. Reed, 263 A.D.2d 800; DiNunzio v. County of Suffolk, 256 A.D.2d 498, 499).
Accordingly, the defendants were entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
ALTMAN, J.P., S. MILLER, McGINITY, ADAMS and MASTRO, JJ., concur.