NAGAYEVA v. DRIMMER

Reset A A Font size: Print

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Lyubov NAGAYEVA, Appellant, v. Devorah DRIMMER, et al., Respondents.

Decided: December 26, 2000

LAWRENCE J. BRACKEN, J.P., FRED T. SANTUCCI, MYRIAM J. ALTMAN and ANITA R. FLORIO, JJ. Alan S. Ripka, P.C. (Pollack, Pollack, Isaac & DeCicco, New York, N.Y. [Brian J. Isaac] of counsel), for appellant. Jaffe & Nohavicka, New York, N.Y. (Stacy R. Seldin of counsel), for respondents.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Pincus, J.), dated December 6, 1999, which granted the defendant's 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).

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendants established prima facie that the plaintiff's injuries were not serious within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d) through the affirmed reports of a neurologist and an orthopedist, who respectively found no evidence of any neurological or orthopedic disability stemming from the accident (see, Gaddy v. Eyler, 79 N.Y.2d 955, 956-957, 582 N.Y.S.2d 990, 591 N.E.2d 1176).   The affirmation of the plaintiff's expert neurologist was the only medical evidence submitted in opposition to the motion, and it failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see, CPLR 3212[b] ).   Accordingly, the motion was properly granted.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

Copied to clipboard