Opinion
Submitted April 26, 2000.
June 12, 2000.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Milano, J.), dated July 16, 1999, 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).
Frank V. Merlino, Garden City, N.Y. (David Holmes of counsel), for appellants.
Shaevitz Shaevitz, Jamaica, N.Y. (Stuart Sears of counsel), for respondent.
Before: LAWRENCE J. BRACKEN, J.P., DANIEL W. JOY, WILLIAM C. THOMPSON, GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.
The Supreme Court improperly denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The defendants established a prima facie case that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d) (see, Grossman v. Wright, 268 A.D.2d 79 [2d Dept., May 8, 2000]; Gaddy v. Eyler, 79 N.Y.2d 955; Flanagan v. Hoeg, 212 A.D.2d 756), thereby shifting the burden to the plaintiff to raise a triable question of fact on that issue (see, Licari v. Elliott, 57 N.Y.2d 230). The plaintiff failed to meet this burden, as the physician's affidavit he submitted in opposition to the motion consisted of nothing more than "conclusory assertions tailored to meet statutory requirements" (Lopez v. Senatore, 65 N.Y.2d 1017, 1019; see, Grossman v. Wright, supra; Medina v. Zalman Reis Associates, 239 A.D.2d 394; Marshall v. Albano, 182 A.D.2d 614). Accordingly, the defendants' motion should have been granted.