Pierre v. Motley , 148 A.D.3d 738 ( 2017 )

Pierre v Motley (2017 NY Slip Op 01579)

Pierre v Motley

2017 NY Slip Op 01579

Decided on March 1, 2017

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 March 1, 2017 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
RUTH C. BALKIN, J.P.
ROBERT J. MILLER
COLLEEN D. DUFFY
HECTOR D. LASALLE
VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ.

2016-00525
(Index No. 17483/12)

[*1]Bernadette Pierre, appellant,

v

Ryevett Motley, respondent.

Hach & Rose, LLP, New York, NY (Robert F. Garnsey and Michael A. Rose of counsel), for appellant.

Richard T. Lau, Jericho, NY (Kathleen E. Fioretti of counsel), for respondent.

DECISION & ORDER

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Rouse, J.), dated October 26, 2015, which granted the defendant's 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) as a result of the subject accident.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant established her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint by submitting evidence showing 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; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957). The defendant submitted competent medical evidence establishing, prima facie, that the alleged injury to the plaintiff's right shoulder did not constitute a serious injury under either the permanent consequential limitation of use or significant limitation of use categories of Insurance Law § 5102(d) (see Staff v Yshua, 59 AD3d 614). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

BALKIN, J.P., MILLER, DUFFY, LASALLE and BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court