VINASCO v. KUZAM (2026)

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Veronica G. Hummel, J.), entered on or about November 25, 2025, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.  Order, same court and Justice, entered on or about February 6, 2026, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied plaintiff's motion for leave to renew her opposition to defendants' motion for summary judgment or to vacate the November 25, 2025 order granting defendants' motion, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants established prima facie that plaintiff did not suffer a serious injury as defined by Insurance Law § 5102(d) by submitting expert reports from an orthopedist and a radiologist, each of whom stated that plaintiff did not suffer any injuries as a result of the alleged accident (see Hall v. Uber Tech., Inc., 221 AD3d 503, 504 [1st Dept 2023] ).

Plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as the medical records she submitted were unaffirmed, and defendants' expert orthopedist did not rely on them (see Cardwood v. R & F Limousine Inc., 224 AD3d 403, 403 [1st Dept 2024] ).  Although defendants' expert radiologist did rely on MRI records, a triable issue of fact was not created as the expert opined that those records indicated no evidence of injuries resulting from the accident (see Cortez v. Bray, 192 AD3d 451, 451 [1st Dept 2021] ), and plaintiff failed to offer an expert opinion to the contrary.

In the absence of any issue of fact as to whether plaintiff's injuries were causally related to the accident, the court properly dismissed the 90/180-day claim (see Stickney v. Akhar, 187 AD3d 425, 426 [1st Dept 2020] ).

Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying plaintiff's motion for leave to renew her opposition to defendants' motion for summary judgment or to vacate the order granting that motion (see Wade v. Giacobbe, 176 AD3d 641, 641–642 [1st Dept 2019], lv dismissed 35 NY3d 937 [2020] ).  Plaintiff failed to raise new facts that would have changed the outcome of the summary judgment motion, or to provide a reasonable excuse for failing to present those facts at the proper time (see id.).