Opinion
2012-02-14
Nancy HALL, et al., respondents, v. Seth C. HECHT, et al., appellants.
Richard T. Lau, Jericho, N.Y. (Keith E. Ford of counsel), for appellants.
*470 In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Tanenbaum, J.), dated June 13, 2011, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff Nancy Hall did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d).
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.
The defendants met their prima facie burden of establishing that the plaintiff Nancy Hall (hereinafter the injured 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 plaintiffs alleged, inter alia, that as a result of the subject accident, the injured plaintiff's left shoulder sustained certain injuries. The defendants submitted competent medical evidence establishing, prima facie, that those alleged injuries did not constitute a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d) ( see Staff v. Yshua, 59 A.D.3d 614, 874 N.Y.S.2d 180), and, in any event, were not caused by the subject accident ( see Jilani v. Palmer, 83 A.D.3d 786, 787, 920 N.Y.S.2d 424).
In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to provide a reasonable explanation for a cessation of the injured plaintiff's medical treatment ( see Pommells v. Perez, 4 N.Y.3d 566, 574, 797 N.Y.S.2d 380, 830 N.E.2d 278; Pou v. E & S Wholesale Meats, Inc., 68 A.D.3d 446, 447, 890 N.Y.S.2d 47), and failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.