HARING v. TOSCANO (2018)

DECISION & ORDER

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Arthur M. Diamond, J.), entered January 14, 2016.  The order granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff commenced this action against the defendants to recover damages for personal injuries allegedly sustained when his bicycle was struck by the defendants' automobile.  The defendants moved 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) as a result of the subject accident.  The Supreme Court granted the defendants' motion.  The plaintiff appeals.

The defendants met their prima facie burden of showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d) as a result of the subject accident (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, 956–957, 582 N.Y.S.2d 990, 591 N.E.2d 1176).  The defendants submitted competent medical evidence establishing, prima facie, that the alleged injury to the lumbar region of the plaintiff's spine was not caused by the accident (see Gouvea v. Lesende, 127 A.D.3d 811, 6 N.Y.S.3d 607;  Fontana v. Aamaar & Maani Karan Tr. Corp., 124 A.D.3d 579, 1 N.Y.S.3d 324;  see generally Jilani v. Palmer, 83 A.D.3d 786, 787, 920 N.Y.S.2d 424).  In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see John v. Linden, 124 A.D.3d 598, 599, 1 N.Y.S.3d 274;  Irizarry v. Lindor, 110 A.D.3d 846, 848, 973 N.Y.S.2d 296).  Accordingly, the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was properly granted.

BALKIN, J.P., ROMAN, MILLER and BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ., concur.