Opinion
January 31, 2001.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Mason, J.), dated March 6, 2000, which granted the defendants' 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).
Howard A. Raphaelson, New York, N.Y., for appellant.
Jaffe Nohavicka, New York, N.Y. (Stacy R. Seldin of counsel), for respondents.
Before: CORNELIUS J. O'BRIEN, J.P., GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
In support of their motion for summary judgment the defendants made a prima facie showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d) (see, Gaddy v. Eyler, 79 N.Y.2d 955). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact as to whether he sustained such a serious injury. The plaintiff failed to submit competent medical evidence in admissible form indicating what treatment, if any, he received for his alleged injuries in the three years between the accident and the examination conducted by his chiropractor in November 1999. In addition, the affidavit of the plaintiff's chiropractor was insufficient to raise an issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff sustained serious injury as it did not provide any information concerning the nature of the plaintiff's medical treatment between the time of the accident and the chiropractor`s examination of the plaintiff (see, Goldin v. Lee, 275 A.D.2d 341; Smith v. Askew, 264 A.D.2d 834; Dimenshteyn v. Caruso, 262 A.D.2d 348; Miller v. Donohue, 250 A.D.2d 825; Williams v. Ciaramella, 250 A.D.2d 763; Rum v. Pam Transport, Inc., 250 A.D.2d 751; Medina v. Zalmen Reis Assocs., 239 A.D.2d 394).
Furthermore, the plaintiff's self-serving statement that he was unable to return to his job as a result of the subject accident, without more, was insufficient to show that he sustained a medically-determined injury or impairment of a nonpermanent nature which prevented him from performing substantially all of the material acts which constituted his usual and customary daily activities for a period of not less than 90 days during the 180-day period immediately following the accident (see, Krakofsky v. Fox-Rizzi, 273 A.D.2d 277; Lalli v. Tamasi, 266 A.D.2d 266; DiNunzio v. County of Suffolk, 256 A.D.2d 498; Estrella v. Marano, 255 A.D.2d 358; Snyder v. Perez, 246 A.D.2d 526; Ryan v. Xuda, 243 A.D.2d 457; Yagliyan v. Yang, 241 A.D.2d 518).