Santiago v. Bhuiyan

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Wilma Guzman, J.), entered August 19, 2009, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendants-appellants’ motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaints óf plaintiffs Rosario and Lopez, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motions granted, said complaints dismissed as against defendants-appellants, and, upon a search of the record, as against the remaining defendants’ as well. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of all defendants dismissing said complaints.

Defendants-appellants met their initial burden of presenting objective medical evidence that the injured plaintiffs had not suffered a permanent consequential limitation of a body organ or a significant limitation of use of a body function or system through the affirmed reports of their medical experts (see Insurance Law § 5102 [d]; Christian v Waite, 61 AD3d 581 [2009]; Blackmon v Dinstuhl, 27 AD3d 241 [2006]). The burden having shifted, summary judgment was warranted because plaintiffs’ experts failed to sufficiently raise triable issues of fact.

Upon a search of the record pursuant to CPLR 3212 (b), we find that the nonappealing defendants’ summary judgment motions should also be granted (see Nicholson v Albishara, 61 AD3d 542 [2009]; Lopez v Simpson, 39 AD3d 420 [2007]). Concur— Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Moskowitz, Acosta and Renwick, JJ.