PULGRAM v. REISNER (2007)

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Milton A. Tingling, J.), entered August 20, 2006, which granted defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and order, same court and Justice, entered March 23, 2007, which, to the extent appealable, denied plaintiff's motion to renew, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

 On their initial motion, defendants established prima facie entitlement to summary judgment by sufficiently demonstrating that plaintiff had not sustained a serious injury from this accident within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d) (Gaddy v. Eyler, 79 N.Y.2d 955, 956-957, 582 N.Y.S.2d 990, 591 N.E.2d 1176 [1992] ).   Plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact by countering with “objective medical findings based on a recent medical examination” (Thompson v. Abbasi, 15 A.D.3d 95, 98, 788 N.Y.S.2d 48 [2005] ) in admissible form.

 Denial of the motion to renew was a provident exercise of discretion.   Plaintiff offered no explanation, reasonable or otherwise, for his failure to submit admissible evidence in opposition to defendant's summary judgment motion (see e.g. Cillo v. Schioppo, 250 A.D.2d 416, 673 N.Y.S.2d 628 [1998] ).   Even if the court had considered the evidence offered by plaintiff, it would have been properly denied as insufficient.