Grant v New York City Tr. Auth.

Grant v New York City Tr. Auth. 2011 NY Slip Op 08723 Decided on November 29, 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 November 29, 2011
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORKAPPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P.
RUTH C. BALKIN
CHERYL E. CHAMBERS
SANDRA L. SGROI, JJ.
2010-10579
(Index No. 13672/08)

[*1]Mattie Grant, appellant,

v

New York City Transit Authority, et al., respondents.




Sacco & Fillas, LLP, Whitestone, N.Y. (Lamont K. Rodgers of
counsel), for appellant.
Wallace D. Gossett, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Jane Shuffer of counsel),
for respondents.


DECISION & ORDER

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Sherman, J.), dated September 13, 2010, which granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that she did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d).

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendants demonstrated their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting competent medical evidence which established that the injuries sustained by the plaintiff did not constitute a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d) (see Klvelowitz v Calia, 43 AD3d 1111). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact either through her medical submissions or via her deposition testimony. The plaintiff testified at her deposition that while her injuries from the accident prevented her from performing some normal activities, they did not prevent her from performing substantially all of her daily activities for not less than 90 days out the first 180 days immediately following the accident (see Pacheco v Conners, 69 AD3d 818; Farozes v Kamran, 22 AD3d 458; see also Dembele v Cambisaca, 59 AD3d 352).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted 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).
MASTRO, J.P., BALKIN, CHAMBERS and SGROI, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Matthew G. Kiernan [*2]

Clerk of the Court