Williams v Town of Greenburgh

Williams v Town of Greenburgh 2012 NY Slip Op 08721 Decided on December 19, 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 19, 2012
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORKAPPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
PETER B. SKELOS, J.P.
RUTH C. BALKIN
CHERYL E. CHAMBERS
ROBERT J. MILLER, JJ.
2012-01136
(Index No. 26566/08)

[*1]Ernest Williams, respondent,

v

Town of Greenburgh, et al., appellants.




Timothy W. Lewis, Town Attorney, Greenburgh, N.Y. (Richard L.
Marasse of counsel), for appellants.
Owen & Eddy, White Plains, N.Y. (W. David Eddy, Jr., of
counsel), for respondent.


DECISION & ORDER

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Lefkowitz, J.), entered December 14, 2011, which denied their 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) as a result of the subject accident.

ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and 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) is granted.

The defendants demonstrated their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by establishing, through competent medical evidence, that the plaintiff's condition did not result from the subject accident (see Scott v Martinez, 99 AD3d 984; Enyah v Sherpa, 98 AD3d 993). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The affidavit of the plaintiff's expert was conclusory on the issue of whether the plaintiff's condition was the result of the subject accident (see Barry v Future Cab Corp., 71 AD3d 710; Piperis v Wan, 49 AD3d 840). Accordingly, the defendants' motion should have been granted.
SKELOS, J.P., BALKIN, CHAMBERS and MILLER, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court