Opinion
2019–01833 Index No. 5263/13
08-19-2020
Brian S. FRALEIGH, appellant, v. Brigid D. CASSON, etc., respondent.
Theodore G. Hartman, Albany, NY, for appellant. Gentile & Tambasco, Melville, N.Y. (Yamile R. Al–Sullami of counsel), for respondent.
Theodore G. Hartman, Albany, NY, for appellant.
Gentile & Tambasco, Melville, N.Y. (Yamile R. Al–Sullami of counsel), for respondent.
CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, J.P., JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, PAUL WOOTEN, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (James D. Pagones, J.), dated December 17, 2018. 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.
The plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for personal injuries he allegedly sustained in a motor vehicle 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.
On appeal, the plaintiff does not raise any arguments relating to the Supreme Court's determination that 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, 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 ; see also Sylvain v. Maurer, 165 A.D.3d 1203, 1204, 85 N.Y.S.3d 203 ; DiLernia v. Khan, 62 A.D.3d 644, 645, 878 N.Y.S.2d 405 ).
In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The unaffirmed reports of the plaintiff's treating physicians were not in admissible form and, thus, they were insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Grasso v. Angerami, 79 N.Y.2d 813, 814–815, 580 N.Y.S.2d 178, 588 N.E.2d 76 ; Yunatanov v. Stein, 69 A.D.3d 708, 709, 893 N.Y.S.2d 569 ).
Accordingly, we agree with the Supreme Court's determination to grant the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
CHAMBERS, J.P., LEVENTHAL, BRATHWAITE NELSON and WOOTEN, JJ., concur.