Oku v MTA Bus Co.

Oku v MTA Bus Co. 2012 NY Slip Op 08290 Decided on December 5, 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 December 5, 2012
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORKAPPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
MARK C. DILLON, J.P.
L. PRISCILLA HALL
SHERI S. ROMAN
JEFFREY A. COHEN, JJ.
2011-09275
(Index No. 30444/08)

[*1]Takila Oku, appellant,

v

MTA Bus Company, respondent, et al., defendant.




Mallilo & Grossman, Flushing, N.Y. (Francesco Pomara, Jr., of
counsel), for appellant.
Sullivan & Brill, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Courtney Haskins 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, Queens County (Weiss, J.), dated September 14, 2011, which granted the motion of the defendant MTA Bus Company for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it on the ground that she 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 defendant MTA Bus Company (hereinafter the MTA) met its 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 MTA submitted competent medical evidence establishing, prima facie, that the plaintiff's injuries were not caused by the subject accident (see Jilani v Palmer, 83 AD3d 786, 787), and that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury under the 90/180-day category of Insurance Law § 5102(d) (see Richards v Tyson, 64 AD3d 760, 761).

In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the MTA's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it 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.
DILLON, J.P., HALL, ROMAN and COHEN, JJ., concur.

ENTER: [*2]

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court