| Wunderlich v Bhuiyan |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 06802 [99 AD3d 795] |
| October 10, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| Carl Wunderlich, Appellant, v Washim U. Bhuiyan et al., Respondents. |
—[*1]
Baker, McEvoy, Morrissey & Moskovits, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Stacy R. Seldin of counsel),
for respondent Washim U. Bhuiyan.
Adams, Hanson, Rego, Carlin, Hughes, Kaplan & Fishbein, Lake Success, N.Y. (Judy
Goodstein of counsel), for respondents Georgios A. Alexiou amd Despina Efremidis.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Butler, J.), entered April 8, 2011, which granted the motion of the defendant Washim U. Bhuiyan, and the separate motion of the defendants Georgios A. Alexiou and Despina Efremidis, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against each of them on the ground that he 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 one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.
The defendants met their prima facie burdens of showing that the 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 defendants submitted competent medical evidence establishing, prima facie, that the alleged injuries to the plaintiff's right knee did not constitute a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see Staff v Yshua, 59 AD3d 614 [2009]), including evidence establishing, prima facie, that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury under the 90/180 day category of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see Bamundo v Fiero, 88 AD3d 831 [2011]).
In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Il Chung Lim v Chrabaszcz, 95 AD3d 950, 951 [2012]; McLoud v Reyes, 82 AD3d 848, 849 [2011]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants' separate motions for summary judgment. Angiolillo, J.P., Balkin, Austin and Miller, JJ., concur.