Opinion
May 16, 1988
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Berkowitz, J.).
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the defendants' motion for summary judgment is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.
The question of whether the plaintiff has made a prima facie showing of a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) should be determined by the court in the first instance as a matter of law (see, Licari v Elliott, 57 N.Y.2d 230, 237; Songer v Henry W. Muthig, Inc., 131 A.D.2d 657). The defendants' motion for summary judgment was supported by the pleadings and a report of the plaintiff's treating physician which indicated that the injuries suffered by the plaintiff were not permanent and further that the plaintiff's "[p]rognosis for complete recovery is excellent". Moreover, it is undisputed that the plaintiff was disabled for less than 90 days. In opposition to the defendants' motion, the plaintiff offered only her attorney's affidavit, which was without evidentiary value (see, Olan v Farrell Lines, 105 A.D.2d 653, affd 64 N.Y.2d 1092). Under the circumstances, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue as to whether the injuries she suffered met the threshold requirements for serious injury within the meaning of the statute (see, Songer v Henry W. Muthig, Inc., supra; Ingles v Yurchak, 125 A.D.2d 452; Popp v Kremer, 124 A.D.2d 720). Thompson, J.P., Lawrence, Eiber and Balletta, JJ., concur.