Taynisha Baez v Imamally Rahamatali

Baez v Rahamatali 2006 NY Slip Op 03473 [6 NY3d 868] May 4, 2006 Court of Appeals Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. As corrected through Wednesday, June 28, 2006

[*1] Taynisha Baez, Appellant,
v
Imamally Rahamatali et al., Respondents.

Decided May 4, 2006

Baez v Rahamatali, 24 AD3d 256, affirmed.

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Pollack, Pollack, Isaac & De Cicco, New York City (Brian J. Isaac of counsel), and Corpina, Piergrossi, Overzat & Klar, LLP, for appellant.

Baker, McEvoy, Morrissey & Moskovits, P.C., New York City (Holly E. Peck of counsel), for John Smith, respondent.

Morris Duffy Alonso & Faley, New York City (Yolanda L. Ayala of counsel), for Nestor Torres, respondent.

Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker LLP, New York City (Nickolas G. Spiliotis of counsel), for Imamally Rahamatali, respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

Defendants met their initial burden of establishing that plaintiff did not suffer a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957 [1992]). In opposition, plaintiff failed to provide an objective medical basis [*2]supporting the conclusion that she sustained a serious injury (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345, 350-351 [2002]). Moreover, plaintiff failed to come forward with evidence that her current alleged need for surgery is causally related to the automobile accident (see Pommells v Perez, 4 NY3d 566, 572, 580 [2005]). Summary judgment was therefore properly granted to defendants.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges G.B. Smith, Ciparick, Rosenblatt, Graffeo, Read and R.S. Smith concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.