Amirova v. JND Trans, Inc.

Amirova v JND Trans, Inc. (2022 NY Slip Op 03489) Amirova v JND Trans, Inc. 2022 NY Slip Op 03489 Decided on June 1, 2022 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 June 1, 2022 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department BETSY BARROS, J.P. VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON ROBERT J. MILLER JOSEPH A. ZAYAS, JJ. 2020-01126 (Index No. 508101/18) [*1]Tamilia Amirova, appellant, v JND Trans, Inc., et al., respondents. The Gekman Law Firm, P.C. (Law Offices of Arnold E. DiJoseph, P.C., New York, NY, of counsel), for appellant. Baker, McEvoy & Moskovits, P.C. (Marjorie E. Bornes, Brooklyn, NY, 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 (Carl J. Landicino, J.), dated December 6, 2019. The order 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) 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 that occurred on December 27, 2017. The defendants 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 subject accident. In an order dated December 6, 2019, the Supreme Court granted the defendants' motion, and the plaintiff appeals. The defendants met their 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 defendants submitted competent medical evidence establishing, prima facie, that the alleged injuries to the cervical and lumbar regions of the plaintiff's spine and the plaintiff's left shoulder were degenerative in nature and not caused by the accident (see Gash v Miller, 177 AD3d 950; Gouvea v Lesende, 127 AD3d 811; Fontana v Aamaar & Maani Karan Tr. Corp., 124 AD3d 579). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The plaintiff's expert failed to address the findings of the defendant's radiologist that the alleged injuries to the cervical and lumbar regions of the plaintiff's spine and the plaintiff's left shoulder were degenerative in nature (see Mnatcakanova v Elliot, 174 AD3d 798, 800; Zavala v Zizzo, 172 AD3d 793, 794; Cavitolo v Broser, 163 AD3d 913, 914). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants' motion for [*2]summary judgment dismissing the complaint. BARROS, J.P., BRATHWAITE NELSON, MILLER and ZAYAS, JJ., concur. ENTER: Maria T. Fasulo Clerk of the Court