Rotella v. Mace

The defendants met their prima facie burden of showing that the plaintiff Linda Rotella (hereinafter the injured 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 [2002]; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955 , 956-957 [1992]). The plaintiffs alleged, inter alia, that as a result of the subject accident, the cervicothoracic region of the injured plaintiffs spine sustained certain injuries, and the defendants provided competent medical evidence establishing, inter alia, that those alleged injuries did not constitute a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see Rodriguez v Huerfano, 46 AD3d 794 , 795 [2007]).

In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Rivera, J.E, Florio, Eng, Hall and Cohen, JJ., concur.