Campanile v. Miller

Campanile v Miller (2019 NY Slip Op 02492) Campanile v Miller 2019 NY Slip Op 02492 Decided on April 3, 2019 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 April 3, 2019 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department ALAN D. SCHEINKMAN, P.J. REINALDO E. RIVERA SYLVIA O. HINDS-RADIX BETSY BARROS, JJ. 2017-08047 (Index No. 605351/15) [*1]Lauren F. Campanile, appellant, v Robert F. Miller, respondent. Gruenberg Kelly Della, Ronkonkoma, NY (Zachary M. Beriloff of counsel), for appellant. Russo & Tambasco, Melville, NY (Yamile Al-Sullami 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 (Joseph Farneti, J.), entered June 22, 2017. The order granted the defendant's 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) as a result of the subject accident. ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs. The plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for personal injuries that she allegedly sustained in a motor vehicle accident. The defendant moved 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) as a result of the accident. The Supreme Court granted the motion. The plaintiff appeals. The defendant met his prima facie burden of showing that the plaintiff 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). The defendant submitted competent medical evidence establishing, prima facie, that the alleged injuries to the cervical and lumbar regions of the plaintiff's spine were not caused by the accident (see Gouvea v Lesende, 127 AD3d 811; Fontana v Aamaar & Maani Karan Tr. Corp., 124 AD3d 579; see generally Jilani v Palmer, 83 AD3d 786, 787). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact, as her experts failed to address the findings of the defendant's radiologist that the magnetic resonance imaging of the cervical and lumbar regions of the plaintiff's spine, taken approximately one month after the accident, revealed that the alleged injuries were degenerative in nature (see Cavitolo v Broser, 163 AD3d 913, 914; Franklin v Gareyua, 136 AD3d 464, 465, 467, affd 29 NY3d 925; John v Linden, 124 AD3d 598, 599; Alvarez v NYLL Mgt. Ltd., 120 AD3d 1043, 1044, affd 24 NY3d 1191, 1192; Irizarry v Lindor, 110 AD3d 846, 848). Accordingly, we agree with the Supreme Court's determination granting the defendant's 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) as a result of the accident. SCHEINKMAN, P.J., RIVERA, HINDS-RADIX and BARROS, JJ., concur. ENTER: Aprilanne Agostino Clerk of the Court