ABDALLAH v. FLATTERY (2001)

 Plaintiffs commenced this action to recover for injuries allegedly sustained by Fawwaz Abdallah (plaintiff) when defendant's vehicle struck the vehicle driven by plaintiff.   Plaintiff alleged that he sustained a significant disfigurement and a significant limitation of use of a body function or system (see, Insurance Law § 5102[d] ).   Supreme Court properly granted defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.   Defendant met his initial burden on the motion by demonstrating that plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury under either of those prongs of the No-Fault statute (Insurance Law § 5102[d];  see, Gaddy v. Eyler, 79 N.Y.2d 955, 956-957, 582 N.Y.S.2d 990, 591 N.E.2d 1176;  Barbarulo v. Allery, 271 A.D.2d 897, 898-899, 707 N.Y.S.2d 268;  Dyagi v. Newburgh Auto Auction, 251 A.D.2d 619, 675 N.Y.S.2d 872;  Jordan v. Baine, 241 A.D.2d 894, 896, 660 N.Y.S.2d 509;  Hutchinson v. Beth Cab Corp., 204 A.D.2d 151, 612 N.Y.S.2d 10;  Koppelmann v. Lepler, 135 A.D.2d 507, 522 N.Y.S.2d 12).   Defendant's examining physician opined that plaintiff had made a full recovery from the accident and had not suffered any permanent or significant injury, disability or disfigurement (see, Delaney v. Lewis, 256 A.D.2d 895, 897, 682 N.Y.S.2d 270).   The physician's opinion is supported by plaintiff's medical records, which set forth plaintiff's subjective complaints but contain no objective medical findings in support of such complaints (see, Barbarulo v. Allery, supra, at 900, 707 N.Y.S.2d 268;  Evans v. Beebe, 267 A.D.2d 828, 829, 699 N.Y.S.2d 803, lv. denied 94 N.Y.2d 762, 708 N.Y.S.2d 51, 729 N.E.2d 708), and which establish the insignificant nature of plaintiff's lacerations.   Further, plaintiff's own doctors characterized plaintiff's head injuries as “minor” or “trivial”, which is insufficient to establish a significant limitation (see, Delaney v. Lewis, supra, at 897, 682 N.Y.S.2d 270;  Broderick v. Spaeth, 241 A.D.2d 898, 660 N.Y.S.2d 232, lv. denied 91 N.Y.2d 805, 668 N.Y.S.2d 560, 691 N.E.2d 632).

Plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact concerning whether he had sustained a significant limitation or significant disfigurement as a result of the accident (see, Gaddy v. Eyler, supra, at 957, 582 N.Y.S.2d 990, 591 N.E.2d 1176;  Barbarulo v. Allery, supra, at 899-900, 707 N.Y.S.2d 268;  Dyagi v. Newburgh Auto Auction, supra;  Jordan v. Baine, supra, at 896, 660 N.Y.S.2d 509).

Order unanimously affirmed with costs.

MEMORANDUM: