Holmes v. Parkinson

186 A.D.3d 1619

129 N.Y.S.3d 822 (Mem)

Alan HOLMES, appellant,

v.Horace PARKINSON, et al., respondents.

2019–00547

Index No. 2159/16

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Argued—March 13, 2020

September 30, 2020

Law Office of Joshua Brian Irwin, P.C. (Mitchell Dranow, Sea Cliff, N.Y. [Brian J. Isaac ], of counsel), for appellant.

Baker, McEvoy, Morrissey & Moskovits, P.C. (Robert D. Grace, Brooklyn, NY, of counsel), for respondents Aristobulo Garzon and Teresa Limo, Inc.

LEONARD B. AUSTIN, J.P., ROBERT J. MILLER, JOSEPH J. MALTESE, FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dawn Jimenez–Salta, J.), dated November 7, 2018. The order granted the motion of the defendants Aristobulo Garzon and Teresa Limo, Inc., and the separate motion of the defendants Horace Parkinson and Nakeisha Russell, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against each of them 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 he allegedly sustained in a motor vehicle accident on May 30, 2014. The defendants Aristobulo Garzon and Teresa Limo, Inc., moved, and the defendants Horace Parkinson and Nakeisha Russell separately moved, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against each of them 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 November 7, 2018, the Supreme Court granted the motions. The plaintiff appeals.

On appeal, the plaintiff does not raise any arguments relating to the Supreme Court's determination that the defendants met their prima facie burden of showing that he 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 N.Y.2d 345, 746 N.Y.S.2d 865, 774 N.E.2d 1197 ; Gaddy v. Eyler , 79 N.Y.2d 955, 956–957, 582 N.Y.S.2d 990, 591 N.E.2d 1176 ; see also Sylvain v. Maurer , 165 A.D.3d 1203, 1204, 85 N.Y.S.3d 203 ; DiLernia v. Khan , 62 A.D.3d 644, 645, 878 N.Y.S.2d 405 ).

In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The plaintiff's experts failed to address the findings...