Robinson v Cameron

Robinson v Cameron 2011 NY Slip Op 08925 Decided on December 6, 2011 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 6, 2011
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORKAPPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
PETER B. SKELOS, J.P.
L. PRISCILLA HALL
PLUMMER E. LOTT
JEFFREY A. COHEN, JJ.
2010-07768
(Index No. 18996/08)

[*1]Robert Robinson, appellant,

v

Brandon Cameron, et al., defendants, Jacek Kochanowski, et al., respondents.




Herbert G. Lindenbaum, PLLC, New York, N.Y., for appellant.
Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP, White
Plains, N.Y. (Stuart A. Miller and Brian J.
Matthews of counsel), for respondents.
Picciano & Scahill, P.C., Westbury, N.Y. (Francis J. Scahill
and Andrea E. Ferrucci of counsel), for
defendant Brandon Cameron.


DECISION & ORDER

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (R. Miller, J.), dated June 29, 2010, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendants Jacek Kochanowski and Page Taxi Corp. which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them 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 insofar as appealed from, with costs payable to the respondents.

The Supreme Court correctly determined that the evidence submitted in support of the motion of the defendants Jacek Kochanowski and Page Taxi Corp. (hereinafter together the defendants) was sufficient to meet their prima facie burden of showing that the plaintiff, who allegedly sustained injuries to the lumbar and cervical regions of his spine and both shoulders as a result of the accident, did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d) as a result of the accident (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court correctly granted that branch of the defendants' motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

In light of our determination, the defendants' remaining contention has been rendered academic.
SKELOS, J.P., HALL, LOTT and COHEN, JJ., concur. [*2]

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court