Marlena A. Wierzbicki v Philip T. Mathew

Wierzbicki v Mathew 2004 NY Slip Op 05237 [8 AD3d 476] June 14, 2004 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. As corrected through Wednesday, August 25, 2004

Marlena A. Wierzbicki, Appellant,
v
Philip T. Mathew, Respondent.

—[*1]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Huttner, J.), entered February 23, 2004, which, upon the granting of the defendant's motion pursuant to CPLR 4401 for judgment as a matter of law made at the close of the plaintiff's case, dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, it was a provident exercise of discretion to preclude the admission into evidence of magnetic resonance imaging films in light of the plaintiff's failure to comply with the requirements of CPLR 4532-a and 22 NYCRR 202.17 (see Neils v Darmochwal, 6 AD3d 589 [2004]; Jemmott v Lazofsky, 5 AD3d 558 [2004]; Wagman v Bradshaw, 292 AD2d 84 [2002]; Grassi v Carolina Barbeque, 254 AD2d 38 [1998]).

The plaintiff's additional contention that the trial court erred in granting the defendant's motion for judgment as a matter of law at the close of the plaintiff's case is without merit. There was no evidence of causation (see Andre v Seem, 234 AD2d 325 [1996]; cf. Bonner v Hill, 302 AD2d 544, 545 [2003]), and there was insufficient evidence that the plaintiff sustained a serious injury (see [*2]Insurance Law § 5102 [d]). Florio, J.P., Krausman, Townes, Mastro and Fisher, JJ., concur.