McMahon v. Negron

2020 NY Slip Op 4472, 126 N.Y.S.3d 672, 186 A.D.3d 593

• Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
• Decided: August 12, 2020
• Docket: Index No. 711461/17
• Status: Published

Opinion

McMahon v Negron (2020 NY Slip Op 04472)

McMahon v Negron

2020 NY Slip Op 04472

Decided on August 12, 2020

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 August 12, 2020 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
RUTH C. BALKIN, J.P.
JOHN M. LEVENTHAL
SHERI S. ROMAN
FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, JJ.

2019-05245
(Index No. 711461/17)

[*1]Erin McMahon, appellant,

v

Ronald Negron, et al., respondents.

Law Office of Matthew T. Fella, Esq., P.C., Babylon, NY, for appellant.

Baker, McEvoy, Morrissey & Moskovits, P.C. (Robert D. Grace, 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, Queens County (Robert I. Caloras, J.), dated March 21, 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. Thereafter, 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 accident. The Supreme Court granted the 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 subject 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 right shoulder were not caused by the subject accident (see 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. Although the plaintiff submitted an affirmed medical report in which her expert opined that the alleged injuries were causally connected to the subject accident, the expert failed to address the findings of the defendants' expert that these injuries were degenerative in nature (see Zavala v Zizzo, 172 AD3d 793, 794; Cavitolo v Broser, 163 AD3d 913, 914; Franklin v Gareyua, 136 AD3d 464, 465, 467, affd 29 NY3d 925).

Accordingly, we agree with the Supreme Court's determination to grant the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

BALKIN, J.P., LEVENTHAL, ROMAN and CONNOLLY, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court