PETROPOULOS v. NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY (2004)

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Knipel, J.), dated August 27, 2003, which granted the motion of the defendants New York City Transit Authority and Phillip Greggs, and the separate motion of the defendant Jose Daniel Canela, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff Angeliki Petropoulos did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d).

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

 The defendants made a prima facie showing that the plaintiff Angeliki Petropoulos (hereinafter the plaintiff) did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d) through the submission of the plaintiff's medical records and the affirmation of the defense medical expert (see Toure v. Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 N.Y.2d 345, 746 N.Y.S.2d 865, 774 N.E.2d 1197;  Gaddy v. Eyler, 79 N.Y.2d 955, 582 N.Y.S.2d 990, 591 N.E.2d 1176;  Hodges v. Jones, 238 A.D.2d 962, 661 N.Y.S.2d 159;  Fragale v. Geiger, 288 A.D.2d 431, 733 N.Y.S.2d 901).   The affidavit of the plaintiff's chiropractor submitted in opposition to the defendants' motions was too vague and conclusory, and therefore failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Almonacid v. Meltzer, 222 A.D.2d 631, 635 N.Y.S.2d 690;  Franchini v. Palmieri, 307 A.D.2d 1056, 763 N.Y.S.2d 381, affd. 1 N.Y.3d 536, 775 N.Y.S.2d 232, 807 N.E.2d 282).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment in their favor dismissing the complaint.