Arthur Baratov, appellant, v. H.L. Robertson, Jr., respondent.

Reset A A Font size: Print

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

Arthur Baratov, appellant, v. H.L. Robertson, Jr., respondent.

2016–09623

Decided: September 12, 2018

CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, J.P. LEONARD B. AUSTIN JEFFREY A. COHEN COLLEEN D. DUFFY, JJ. Wellerstein & Associates, P.C., Maspeth, N.Y. (Avraham Goldberg of counsel), for appellant.

Argued—May 22, 2018

DECISION & ORDER

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Janice A. Taylor, J.), entered July 19, 2016.  The order 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.

This action arises from a motor vehicle accident that occurred on November 30, 2013, in Manhattan.  The plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for personal injuries that he allegedly sustained in the accident.  The defendant 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 defendant's motion, and the plaintiff appeals.

The defendant met his 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) through competent medical and other evidence (see Gouvea v. Lesende, 127 AD3d 811;  Fontana Aamaar & Maani Karan Tr. Corp., 124 AD3d 579;  see generally Jilani v. Palmer, 83 AD3d 786, 787).  In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see John v. Linden, 124 AD3d 598, 599;  Irizarry v. Lindor, 110 AD3d 846, 848).  Accordingly, we agree with the Supreme Court's determination to grant the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

CHAMBERS, J.P., AUSTIN, COHEN and DUFFY, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court