Opinion
Submitted January 17, 2001
February 20, 2001.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Schmidt, J.), dated March 28, 2000, as granted the separate motions of the defendant Eric Zambrana and the defendant Scott Seltzer for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d).
Mahler, Miller, Harris Engel, P.C., Kew Gardens, N.Y. (Michael R. Freeda of counsel), for appellant.
Kaplan Winkler, White Plains, N.Y. (Michael A. Vitali of counsel), for respondent Eric Zambrana.
Picciano Scahill, P.C. (Rivkin, Radler Kremer, Uniondale, N Y [Evan H. Krinick, Cheryl F. Korman, and Stuart M. Bodoff] of counsel), for respondent Scott Seltzer.
Before: BRACKEN, ACTING P.J., S. MILLER, McGINITY and SCHMIDT, JJ., concur.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.
The physicians' affirmations submitted by the defendants Eric Zambrana and Scott Seltzer in support of their separate motions for summary judgment made out a prima facie case (see, CPLR 3212[b]) that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d). The burden therefore shifted to the plaintiff to come forward with sufficient evidence to establish that she sustained a serious injury (see, Gaddy v. Eyler, 79 N.Y.2d 955). Since the plaintiff's submissions failed to raise a triable issue of fact, the defendants' respective motions were properly granted (see, Grossman v. Wright, 268 A.D.2d 79).