Hendrickson v Williams

Hendrickson v Williams 2012 NY Slip Op 03143 Decided on April 24, 2012 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on April 24, 2012
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORKAPPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
DANIEL D. ANGIOLILLO, J.P.
ANITA R. FLORIO
JOHN M. LEVENTHAL
PLUMMER E. LOTT, JJ.
2010-09486
(Index No. 35883/07)

[*1]Jamie Hendrickson, appellant,

v

John Williams, Jr., respondent.




Samuels & Associates, P.C., Rosedale, N.Y. (Violet E. Samuels
of counsel), for appellant.
Richard T. Lau, Jericho, N.Y. (Joseph G. Gallo of counsel), for
respondent.


DECISION & ORDER

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Saitta, J.), dated August 4, 2010, which granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that she did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d).

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

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 NY2d 345; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957). The defendant submitted competent medical evidence establishing, prima facie, that the alleged injuries to the cervical region of the plaintiff's spine and right shoulder did not constitute serious injuries within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d) (see Staff v Yshua, 59 AD3d 614; Rodriguez v Huerfano, 46 AD3d 794, 795). The defendant also submitted evidence establishing, prima facie, that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury under the 90/180-day category of Insurance Law § 5102(d) (cf. Leeber v Ward, 55 AD3d 563, 564).

In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
ANGIOLILLO, J.P., FLORIO, LEVENTHAL and LOTT, JJ., concur.

ENTER: [*2]

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court