Opinion
2018–07984 Index No. 605527/16
12-04-2019
Sonia Bonilla CASERES, Appellant, v. Geeta K. VERMA, Respondent.
Dell & Dean, PLLC (Mischel & Horn, P.C., New York, N.Y. [Scott T. Horn and Lauren E. Bryant ], of counsel), for appellant. Sette & Apoznanski (Russo & Tambasco, Melville, N.Y. [Susan J. Mitola and Alina Vengerov], of counsel), for respondent.
Dell & Dean, PLLC (Mischel & Horn, P.C., New York, N.Y. [Scott T. Horn and Lauren E. Bryant ], of counsel), for appellant.
Sette & Apoznanski (Russo & Tambasco, Melville, N.Y. [Susan J. Mitola and Alina Vengerov], of counsel), for respondent.
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, LINDA CHRISTOPHER, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for personal injuries that she allegedly sustained when she was struck by a vehicle while she was riding a bicycle on September 12, 2013. 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 motion, and the plaintiff appeals.
The defendant met her 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, 746 N.Y.S.2d 865, 774 N.E.2d 1197 ; Gaddy v. Eyler , 79 N.Y.2d 955, 956–957, 582 N.Y.S.2d 990, 591 N.E.2d 1176 ). The defendant submitted, inter alia, the plaintiff's own deposition testimony and competent medical evidence establishing, prima facie, that the plaintiff's alleged injuries did not constitute serious injuries under the significant disfigurement, permanent consequential limitation of use, or significant limitation of use categories of Insurance Law § 5102(d) (see Staff v. Yshua , 59 A.D.3d 614, 874 N.Y.S.2d 180 ; Loiseau v. Maxwell , 256 A.D.2d 450, 682 N.Y.S.2d 74 ). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Il Chung Lim v. Chrabaszcz , 95 A.D.3d 950, 951, 944 N.Y.S.2d 236 ; McLoud v. Reyes , 82 A.D.3d 848, 849, 919 N.Y.S.2d 32 ).
Accordingly, we agree with the Supreme Court's determination granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
MASTRO, J.P., CHAMBERS, LEVENTHAL and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.