BARNES v. PAUKAR (2023)

DECISION & ORDER

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Joseph A. Santorelli, J.), dated July 23, 2020.  The order granted the defendants’ motion 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.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for personal injuries that he allegedly sustained in a motor vehicle accident.  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.  In an order dated July 23, 2020, the Supreme Court granted the motion.  The plaintiff appeals.

The defendants met their prima facie burden of demonstrating 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;  Gaddy v. Eyler, 79 N.Y.2d 955, 956–957).  The defendants submitted competent medical evidence establishing, prima facie, that the alleged injuries to the cervical and lumbar regions of the plaintiff's spine and the plaintiff's left shoulder were degenerative in nature and not caused by the accident (see Amirova v. JND Trans, Inc., 206 AD3d 601, 602;  Gash v. Miller, 177 AD3d 950;  Gouvea v. Lesende, 127 AD3d 811).

In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact.  The plaintiff's experts failed to address the findings of the defendants’ radiologist that the alleged injuries to the cervical and lumbar regions of the plaintiff's spine and the plaintiff's left shoulder were degenerative in nature (see Amirova v. JND Trans, Inc., 206 AD3d at 602;  Mnatcakanova v. Elliot, 174 AD3d 798, 800;  Zavala v. Zizzo, 172 AD3d 793, 794;  Cavitolo v. Broser, 163 AD3d 913).

The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit.

CONNOLLY, J.P., MILLER, WOOTEN and WAN, JJ., concur.