Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paul Wooten, J.), entered November 28, 2008, which granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
Gonzalez, P.J., Mazzarelli, Nardelli, Acosta, RomÁn, JJ.
Defendant satisfied her initial burden of demonstrating, prima facie, that plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury as defined by Insurance Law 5102(d). Defendant submitted the affirmed report of a neurologist who found no neurological deficits and noted only a 20 degree limitation on flexion in plaintiff's lumbosacral spine.
Plaintiff failed to meet her consequent burden to provide evidence which raised a triable issue of fact concerning whether she sustained such a serious injury, instead relying on the finding of defendant's doctor. However, the limitation noted by defendant's doctor is not significant within the meaning of Insurance Law 5102(d) (see Style v Joseph, 32 AD3d 212, 214 ). Moreover, defendant's doctor opined that it was not causally related to the accident and plaintiff provided nothing which raised a triable issue of fact concerning this element of proof. Accordingly, the court properly granted summary judgment.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw ...