Plaintiffs Damian Ramos and Danielle Ramos appeal from that portion of an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Julia I. Rodriguez), entered October 6, 2006, which granted the motion of defendants Cooseman Specialties, Inc. and Cooseman Specialties Company for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them.

Per Curiam. [*2]

Order (Julia I. Rodriguez, J.), entered October 6, 2006, insofar as appealed from, affirmed, with $10 costs.

Defendants-appellants established prima facie that the first-named plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury (Insurance Law § 5102[d]) through the affirmed reports of an orthopedist and neurologist, both of whom examined plaintiff and found that he exhibited normal ranges of motion of the neck and back and had no disability, and a radiologist who opined that a cervical MRI study conducted after the vehicular accident revealed degenerative changes in plaintiff's neck and no post-traumatic injuries.

In opposition, plaintiff submitted no medical evidence of his condition or treatment records contemporaneous with the accident, and therefore failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The only evidence of limitation is contained in a medical report of a physiatrist who examined plaintiff only once, more than eight years after the accident. That report is too remote in time in relation to the accident to raise an issue of fact as to whether any limitation was caused by the accident (see Ali v Khan, 50 AD3d 454 [2008]; Lopez v Simpson, 39 AD3d 420 [2007]). Without objective findings of any limitation contemporaneous with the accident, plaintiff's allegations that he had difficulty engaging in certain activities are insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact with respect to his "90/180 day" claim (see Brantley v New York City Metro. Tr. Auth., 48 AD3d 313 [2008]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
Decision Date: October 21, 2009