Opinion
2003-04759.
Decided December 15, 2003.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Lally, J.), entered April 18, 2003, which denied her motion, inter alia, 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).
Martyn, Toher, Esposito, Martyn Adler, Mineola, N.Y. (Jacqueline R. Sobotta of counsel), for appellant.
Malone, Tauber Sohn, P.C., Freeport, N.Y. (Stuart T. Spitzer of counsel), for respondent.
Before: HOWARD MILLER, STEPHEN G. CRANE, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.
The defendant made a prima facie showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d) ( see Toure v. Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 N.Y.2d 345; Gaddy v. Eyler, 79 N.Y.2d 955; Junco v. Ranzi, 288 A.D.2d 440). The affirmations of the plaintiff's physicians submitted in opposition to the motion failed to establish that any of the identified limitations in movement were significant ( see Trotter v. Hart, 285 A.D.2d 772, 773; Cabri v. Myung-Soo Park, 260 A.D.2d 525; Williams v. Ciaramella, 250 A.D.2d 763; Medina v. Zalmen Reis and Assocs., 239 A.D.2d 394; Waldman v. Dong Kook Chang, 175 A.D.2d 204).
Moreover, the plaintiff's statement at her deposition that she was unable to engage in some of her previously regular activities was not supported by any competent medical evidence regarding her claim that she was unable to perform substantially all of her daily activities for not less than 90 of the first 180 days immediately following the subject accident ( see Sainte-Aime v. Ho, 274 A.D.2d 569, 570; Jackson v. New York City Tr. Auth., 273 A.D.2d 200, 201; Greene v. Miranda, 272 A.D.2d 441, 442; Arshad v. Gomer, 268 A.D.2d 450; Bennett v. Reed, 263 A.D.2d 800, 801; DiNunzio v. County of Suffolk, 256 A.D.2d 498, 499).
Accordingly, the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint should have been granted.
RITTER, J.P., SMITH, FRIEDMANN, H. MILLER and CRANE, JJ., concur.