Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Joseph Esposito, J.), dated January 16, 2007. The order granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Order affirmed without costs.

In this action to recover damages for personal injuries arising from a motor vehicle accident, the court granted a motion by defendant for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the threshold ground that plaintiffs had not sustained a serious injury pursuant to Insurance Law § 5102 (d). Plaintiffs' only contention on appeal is that the court wrongfully found that they did not raise a triable issue of fact in
response to defendant's prima facie showing that plaintiffs had not sustained a serious injury pursuant to Insurance Law § 5102 (d). Upon a review of the record, we find that neither plaintiff adequately explained the serious gaps in their respective treatments (see e.g. Pommells v Perez, 4 NY3d 566 [2005]; Aponte v Tusa, 28 AD3d 407 [2006]; Batista v Olivo, 17 AD3d 494 [2005]). Moreover, in their opposition below, plaintiffs failed to offer any evidence or argument to support their claim pursuant to the 90/180 day category. Accordingly, we affirm the order granting defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Golia, J.P., Pesce and Rios, JJ., concur. [*2]
Decision Date: April 3, 2008