Majority
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Meddaugh, J.), entered April 14, 2005 in Sullivan County, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
On March 31, 2003, at approximately 1:30 a.m., a tractor trailer driven by defendant Ricky A. Bachman and owned by defendant MB Food Processing, Inc., veered off Route 42 in the
Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages for her emotional distress, alleging not only a negligence claim but also a serious injury under Insurance Law § 5102 (d). Defendants successfully moved for summary judgment on the negligence claim. Although Supreme Court dismissed the complaint, it did not specifically rule on the Insurance Law cause of action. Plaintiff appeals.
Initially, as we are empowered to address the Insurance Law § 5102 cause of action despite Supreme Court’s declination to do so (see CPLR 3212 [b]; Merritt Hill Vineyards v Windy Hgts. Vineyard, 61 NY2d 106 , 110 [1984]), we dismiss that claim for a failure to offer objective medical evidence (see Bissonette v Compo, 307 AD2d 673 , 674 [2003]). Left with a cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress, plaintiff was required to show a breach of a duty owed to her which unreasonably endangered her physical safety, or caused her to fear for her own safety (see Moore v Melesky, 14 AD3d 757 , 761 [2005]; Sheila C. v Povich, 11 AD3d 120 , 130 [2004]; Dobisky v Rand, 248 AD2d 903 , 905 [1998]). While we recognize that plaintiff may recover damages for emotional distress, even in the absence of a corresponding physical injury, those circumstances will typically occur when “there exists ‘an especial likelihood of genuine and serious mental distress, arising from . . . special circumstances, [since it] serves as a guarantee that the claim is not spurious’ ” (Johnson v State of New York, 37 NY2d 378 , 382 [1975], quoting Prosser, Torts § 54, at 330 [4th ed]; see Battalla v State of New York, 10 NY2d 237 , 241-242 [1961]; Iannotti v City of Amsterdam, 225 AD2d 990 , 990-991 [1996]; Kaufman v Physical Measurements, 207 AD2d 595 , 596 [1994]).
Here, defendant, as the movant, sustained his prima facie evidentiary burden (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 , 562 [1980]). In response, plaintiff proffered both her own affidavit and her bill of particulars indicating that she suffered from emotional distress which was an “exacerbation and/or acceleration of a prior existing post-traumatic stress disorder.” In the absence of any expert proof, more was required (see Tatta v State of New York, 20 AD3d 825 , 827 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d
Cardona, P.J., Crew III, Lahtinen and Rose, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
Cases cited
- Merritt Hill Vineyards Inc. v. Windy Heights Vineyard, Inc. 61 NY2d 106 at 110 p. 987
- Bissonette v. Compo 307 AD2d 673 at 674 p. 987
- Moore v. Melesky 14 AD3d 757 at 761 p. 987
- Sheila C. v. Povich 11 AD3d 120 at 130 p. 987
- Dobisky v. Rand 248 AD2d 903 at 905 p. 987
- Johnson v. State 37 NY2d 378 at 382 p. 987
- Battalla v. State 10 NY2d 237 at 241-242 p. 987
- Iannotti v. City of Amsterdam 225 AD2d 990 at 990-991 p. 987
- Kaufman v. Physical Measurements, Inc. 207 AD2d 595 at 596 p. 987
- Zuckerman v. City of New York 49 NY2d 557 at 562 p. 987
- Tatta v. State 20 AD3d 825 at 827 p. 987
- Atkins v. Exxon Mobil Corp. 9 AD3d 758 at 759 p. 988
- Doner v. Ed Adams Contracting, Inc. 208 AD2d 1072 at 1072 p. 988
- Allinger v. City of Utica 226 AD2d 1118 at 1120 p. 988
- Hart v. Child's Nursing Home Co. 298 AD2d 721 at 723 p. 988
- Dabb v. NYNEX Corp. 262 AD2d 1079 at 1080 p. 988
- Gonzalez v. New York City Housing Authority 181 AD2d 440 at 440 p. 988
- Lopez v. Gomez 305 AD2d 292 at 293 p. 988
- Feng v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority 285 AD2d 447 at 448 p. 988
- Probst v. Cacoulidis 295 AD2d 331 at 332 p. 988