VASQUEZ v. AMCA SERVICES INC

Reset A A Font size: Print

Celeste VASQUEZ, appellant, v. AMCA SERVICES, INC., respondent.

Decided: January 30, 2013

REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., THOMAS A. DICKERSON, JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, and PLUMMER E. LOTT, JJ. Robert O. Corini, New Rochelle, N.Y., for appellant. Baker, McEvoy, Morrissey & Moskovits, P.C. (Stacy R. Seldin of counsel), for respondent.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Loehr, J.), entered October 18, 2011, 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) as a result of the subject accident.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the defendant met its 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; Gaddy v. Eyler, 79 N.Y.2d 955, 956–957). The defendant submitted competent medical evidence establishing, prima facie, that the alleged injury to the cervical region of the plaintiff's spine did not constitute a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d) (see Staff v. Yshua, 59 AD3d 614, 614).

In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether she sustained a serious injury. Thus, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Copied to clipboard