Barroso v Kristensen

Barroso v Kristensen 2007 NY Slip Op 10087 [46 AD3d 731] December 18, 2007 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. As corrected through Wednesday, February 13, 2008

Angel Barroso, Appellant,
v
Gilma S. Kristensen et al., Respondents.

—[*1] Heriberto A. Cabrera, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Joseph M. Dash of counsel), for appellant.

Epstein, Rayhill & Frankini, Woodbury, N.Y. (Mona C. Haas of counsel), for respondents.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Hart, J.), dated September 7, 2006, which granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that he did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendants met their prima facie burden by establishing 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 [2002]; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957 [1992]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, the Supreme Court correctly granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Spolzino, J.P., Skelos, Lifson and McCarthy, JJ., concur.