Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/18/2018 01:54 PM INDEX NO. 157939/2015
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 92 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/18/2018
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
___________________ ———X
___________________________________-------X
MICHELLE BOWMAN and TREAVA BOWMAN, Index No.: 157939/15 ECF
Plaintiffs, AFFIRMATION IN REPLY
-against-
MARION GREGG, GILBERT MORALES and THE
CITY OF NEW YORK,
Defendants.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------X
NOREEN CONROY DOMINGO, an attorney duly admitted to practice law in the State of
New York, hereby affirms the following upon information and belief, and with knowledge of the
penalties of perjury:
1. I am associated with the LAW OFFICE OF JAMES J. TOOMEY, attorneys for
the defendant MARION GREGG, and as such I am fully familiar with the facts and
circumstances as stated herein.
Plaintiffs'
2. This Affirmation is respectfully submitted in reply to opposition and in
further support of the within motion seeking an Order pursuant to CPLR § 3212 and New York
Insurance Law Art. 51 granting summary judgment to defendant MARION GREGG
("GREGG"), dismissing the Verified Complaint of the plaintiffs, MICHELLE BOWMAN and
TREAKEAVA BOWMAN s/h/a TREAVA BOWMAN (hereinafter "TREAKEAVA
injury"
BOWMAN"), on the grounds that the injuries claimed do not satisfy the "serious
threshold requirement of Section 5102(d) of the Insurance Law.
L
1 of 7
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/18/2018 01:54 PM INDEX NO. 157939/2015
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 92 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/18/2018
DEFENDANT GREGG'S MOTION IS TIMELY b
3. As stated in Defendant Gregg's underlying motion papers, the Plaintiffs filed a
defective, previously stricken Note of Issue dated June 22, 2016 on September 23, 2016.
Although Plaintiffs contend that the filing of the defective, previously stricken Note of
Issue was due to "law office the fact remains that the Note of Issue that was e-
error",
filed on September 23, 2016, was previously stricken and is therefore void. A copy of the
Court's Order striking the Note of Issue is annexed to the moving papers as Exhibit F.
4. As per the case scheduling Order the note of issue filing date is to be determined
at the compliance conference. Furthermore, in an Order dated January 4, 2017, and
Plaintiffs' Plaintiffs'
signed by allparties, including counsel, the Court extended time to
Plaintiffs'
file a Note of Issue until May 10, 2017. Certainly ifthe Court had accepted
Note of Issue, there would be no reason to extend the deadline in which to file. A copy of
this Order is annexed to the moving papers as Ex. P.
-
5. To date, the only Note of Issue in this matter that has been filed by Plaintiffs, was
Plaintiffs'
previously stricken. Defendant Gregg's motion is not untimely and argument
Plaintiffs' "correct"
must fail. opposition states the Note of Issue was e-filed on
Plaintiffs'
September 22, 2016, but was returned due to Plaintiff filing itincorrectly, then
..
"inadvertently"
office e-filed the June 22, 2016 Note of Issue again. It is respectfully
Plaintiffs'
submitted that counsel has only re-efiled the defective, stricken Note of Issue.
failure" "inadvertently"
"Law office and filing the wrong documents are not justifiable
Plaintiffs'
excuses for failure to correctly filea Note of Issue.
L
2 of 7
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/18/2018 01:54 PM INDEX NO. 157939/2015
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 92 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/18/2018
DEFENDANT GREGG HAS PROPERLY MET HIS BURDEN OF PROOF b
AS TO SERIOUS INJURY THRESHOLD
injury"
6. "Serious as defined in Article 5102(d) of the Insurance Law is defined as:
• Death;
•
Dismemberment;
• Significant disfigurement;
• A fracture;
• Loss of a fetus;
• Permanent loss of use of a body organ, member, function or system;
• Permanent consequential limitation of use of a body function or system;
• Significant limitation of use of a function or
body system;
• A determined or impairment of a non-permanent nature which
medically injury
prevents the injured person from performing substantially all of the material acts
which constitute such person's usual and customary daily activities for not less
than 90 days during the 180 days immediately following the occurrence of the
injury or impairment.
injury"
7. Plaintiffs fail to meet any of the required categories of "serious and as
such, have not met their burden of raising any true triable issues of fact which would
warrant denial of Defendant Gregg's motion for summary judgment.
Plaintiffs'
8. Despite assertions to the contrary, they fail to adequately counter
Defendant Gregg's motion and demonstrate the existence of material fact necessitating a
trialof this matter and denial of defendant's underlying motion.
injury"
9. It is respectfully submitted that the issue of "serious has been properly
raised by defendant. In order to establish entitlement to summary judgment based on the
injury"
"serious requirement, defendants have the initial burden to submit evidentiary
injury"
proof in admissible form demonstrating that plaintiff has suffered a "serious as
defined by Insurance Law §5102(d). Lowe v. Bennett, 122 A.D.2d 728, 511 N.Y.S. 2d
603 (1st Dept. 1986) aff'd 69 N.Y.2d 701 (1986).
10. As stated in Defendant Gregg's moving papers, and based on the reports of
orthopedists Robert S. Goldstein, M.D. and Edward Toriello, M.D., and neurologist
3 of 7
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/18/2018 01:54 PM INDEX NO. 157939/2015
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 92 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/18/2018
Adam N. Bender, M.D., there was no evidence tending to disclose the presence of any
E
injury which could be characterized as a "serious injury". Defendant Gregg has properly
raised the issue of "serious injury". These reports are annexed to Defendant Gregg's
motion for summary judgment as Exhibits K, L, M and N.
injury"
11. Where the issue of "serious is properly raised by defendant, plaintiff has
the burden of coming forward with evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to
raise a triable issue of fact relating to "serious injury". Licari v. Elliott, 57 N.Y.2d 230,
235, 455 N.Y.S.2d 570 (1982); Zoldas v. Louise Cab Corp.,., 108 A.D.2d 378, 489
N.Y.S.2d 468 (1st Dept. 1985). Failure to submit sufficient evidentiary proof in
admissible form is fatal to plaintiff's claim and summary judgment must be granted to the
defendant. Assaf v. Ropog Cab Corp.,., 153 A.D.2D 520, 544 n.y.s.2D 834 (1st Dept.
1989). In the case at bar, Plaintiffs have failed to submit such evidence.
SCOTT LEIST'S AFFIDAVIT IS INSUFFICIENT TO RAISE TRIABLE
¯¯
ISSUES OF FACT
12. Neither Plaintiff Michelle Bowman nor Treakeava Bowman sustained a
Plaintiffs'
'significant, partial, permanent disability'. heavy reliance on chiropractor Scott
Leist's diagnosis and affidavit is misplaced. Mr. Leist's affidavit is conclusory and
tailored to meet the statutory requirements. The Appellate Division, Second Department,
had held that affidavits submitted by plaintiffs medical providers were incapable of
raising a triable issue of fact where "their statements of permanent injury were patently
requirements."
tailored to meet the statutory Castano v. Synergy Gas Corp.,.,250 A.D.2d
(2nd
640, 672 N.Y.S.2d 417 (2 Dept. 1998).
13. Similarly, in Lopez v. Senatore.. 65 N.Y.2d 1017, 494 N.Y.S.2d 101 (1985), the
'permanent'
Court of Appeals, held, '%he mere repetition of the word in the affidavit of a
4 of 7
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/18/2018 01:54 PM INDEX NO. 157939/2015
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 92 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/18/2018
injury,'
treating physician is insufficient to establish 'serious and that summary judgment
E
should be granted for defendant where the plaintiff's evidence is limited to conclusory
requirements."
assertions tailored to meet statutory Id.
14. In Hutchinson v. Beth Cab Corp.,. 204 A.D.2d 151. 612 N.Y.S.2d 10, 11 (1st
Dept. 1994), the Court granted summary judgment to the defendant even though both
plaintiff's physicians predicted that the plaintiffs injuries would be permanent. The
Court reasoned that although the physicians suggested a permanent injury, they did not
suggest that such injuries amounted to a permanent loss of a body organ or system. M
(-
Cases such as this illustrate the strict construction that Courts place on interpreting the
plaintiff's burden in meeting the serious injury requirement.
PLAINTIFFS'
MRI'S AND CT SCANS DO NOT DEMONSTRATE
INJURY"
A "SERIOUS
15. The Plaintiffs error in arguing that the findings of the abnormal CT Scan of
Michelle Bowman's lumbar spine and cervical spine the abnormal MRI of Treakeava
Bowman's lumbar spine and cervical spine demonstrate they sustained a serious injury as
a result of the alleged automobile accident. In fact, the alleged findings aren't indicative
of anything, and itis most certainly not prima facie evidence of a serious injury.
16. In Meely v. 4 G's Truck Renting Co., Inc., 16 A.D.3d 26, 789 N.Y.S.2d 277 (2nd
Dept. 2005), where the Appellate Division, Second Department, held, "a defendant who
submits admissible proof that a plaintiff has a full range of motion and that he or she
suffers from no disabilities has established a prima facie case that the plaintiff did not
sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d), despite the
discs."
existence of an MRI report which shows herniated or bulging Id. at 30. See also,
5 of 7
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/18/2018 01:54 PM INDEX NO. 157939/2015
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 92 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/18/2018
(2nd
Kearse v. New York City Tr. Auth., 16 A.D.3d 45, 789 N.Y.S.2d 281 Dept. 2005);
8
(2nd
Diaz v. Tumer, 306 A.D.2d 241, 242, 761 N.Y.S.2d 93 Dept. 2003); Figueroa v.
(2"4 e'
Westbury Trans, 304 A.D.2d 614, .'t 757N.Y.S.2d 756 Dept. .»);
2003); Fauk v. .
Jenkins.
(2nd
301 A.D.2d 564, 565, 754 N.Y.S.2d 317 Dept. 2003); Bernabel v. Perullo, 300
(2nd
A.D.2d 330, 331, 751 N.Y.S.2d 314 Dept. 2002); Malpica v. Laverene, 294 A.D.2d
(2nd
340, 741 N.Y.S.2d 731 Dept. 2002); Espinal v. Galicia, 290 A.D.2d 528, 737
(2nd
N.Y.S.2d 102 Dept. 2002); Duldulao v. City of New York, 284 A.D.2d 296, 297, 725
(2nd (1"
..S.»8
N.Y.S.2d 380 Dept. . 2001); Brown v. .
Achy, 9 A.D.3d 30, 31, 776 ..S.
N.Y.S.2d 56
F
Dept. 2004). Clearly, it iswell settled that MRI findings without more are insufficient to
raise a triable issue of fact.
17. Mere findings of bulging and herniated intervertebral discs does not establish a
injury"
prima facie case of "serious absent proof in accordance with the statutory
requirements. In Descovich v. Blieka, 279 A.D.2d 499, 718 N.Y.S.2d 870 (2nd Dept.
2001), the Second Department dismissed a plaintiff's cause of action noting:
Although the plaintiff's treating physician submitted an affidavit indicating
that the plaintiff suffered from a herniated disc and bulging discs, such
injuries do not alone constitute serious injury. Rather the plaintiff is still
required to provide objective evidence of the extent of degree of the
physical evidence of the extent or degree of the physical limitations
resulting from such injuries and their duration...In this respect, plaintiff's
evidence was lacking, and thus, the defendant was entitled to summary
judgment dismissing the complaint.
18. In Greene v. Miranda, 272 A.D.2d 441, 708 N.Y.S.2d 310 (2nd Dept.
2000), the Appellate Division granted defendant's motion for summary judgment
and dismissed plaintiff's complaint noting that while the plaintiff submitted
evidence that the plaintiff suffered from herniated discs and a bulging discs,
6 of 7
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/18/2018 01:54 PM INDEX NO. 157939/2015
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 92 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/18/2018
plaintiff failed to provide any objective evidence of the extent or degree of the
8
alleged physical limitations resulting from these disc injuries and their duration.
19. Plaintiffs have failed to set forth any concrete evidence in admissible form to
support their position. They have not provided any competent evidence to demonstrate
that they sustained anything more than strain injuries with minimal limitation of motion,
injury"
which has been held to not rise to the level of "serious as contemplated by New
York Insurance Law § 5102(d).
I
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully requested that this Court grant Defendant MARION
GREGG's motion for summary judgment in its entirety together with such other and further
relief as this Court deems just, proper, and equitable.
Dated: New York, New York
January 18, 2018
/s/ NOREEN CONROY DOMINGO
NOREEN CONROY DOMINGO
7 of 7
Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/18/2018 01:54 PM INDEX NO. 157939/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 92 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/18/2018 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK ___________________ ———X ___________________________________-------X MICHELLE BOWMAN and TREAVA BOWMAN, Index No.: 157939/15 ECF Plaintiffs, AFFIRMATION IN REPLY -against- MARION GREGG, GILBERT MORALES and THE CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendants. -------------------------------------------------------------------------X NOREEN CONROY DOMINGO, an attorney duly admitted to practice law in the State of New York, hereby affirms the following upon information and belief, and with knowledge of the penalties of perjury: 1. I am associated with the LAW OFFICE OF JAMES J. TOOMEY, attorneys for the defendant MARION GREGG, and as such I am fully familiar with the facts and circumstances as stated herein. Plaintiffs' 2. This Affirmation is respectfully submitted in reply to opposition and in further support of the within motion seeking an Order pursuant to CPLR § 3212 and New York Insurance Law Art. 51 granting summary judgment to defendant MARION GREGG ("GREGG"), dismissing the Verified Complaint of the plaintiffs, MICHELLE BOWMAN and TREAKEAVA BOWMAN s/h/a TREAVA BOWMAN (hereinafter "TREAKEAVA injury" BOWMAN"), on the grounds that the injuries claimed do not satisfy the "serious threshold requirement of Section 5102(d) of the Insurance Law. L 1 of 7 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/18/2018 01:54 PM INDEX NO. 157939/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 92 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/18/2018 DEFENDANT GREGG'S MOTION IS TIMELY b 3. As stated in Defendant Gregg's underlying motion papers, the Plaintiffs filed a defective, previously stricken Note of Issue dated June 22, 2016 on September 23, 2016. Although Plaintiffs contend that the filing of the defective, previously stricken Note of Issue was due to "law office the fact remains that the Note of Issue that was e- error", filed on September 23, 2016, was previously stricken and is therefore void. A copy of the Court's Order striking the Note of Issue is annexed to the moving papers as Exhibit F. 4. As per the case scheduling Order the note of issue filing date is to be determined at the compliance conference. Furthermore, in an Order dated January 4, 2017, and Plaintiffs' Plaintiffs' signed by allparties, including counsel, the Court extended time to Plaintiffs' file a Note of Issue until May 10, 2017. Certainly ifthe Court had accepted Note of Issue, there would be no reason to extend the deadline in which to file. A copy of this Order is annexed to the moving papers as Ex. P. - 5. To date, the only Note of Issue in this matter that has been filed by Plaintiffs, was Plaintiffs' previously stricken. Defendant Gregg's motion is not untimely and argument Plaintiffs' "correct" must fail. opposition states the Note of Issue was e-filed on Plaintiffs' September 22, 2016, but was returned due to Plaintiff filing itincorrectly, then .. "inadvertently" office e-filed the June 22, 2016 Note of Issue again. It is respectfully Plaintiffs' submitted that counsel has only re-efiled the defective, stricken Note of Issue. failure" "inadvertently" "Law office and filing the wrong documents are not justifiable Plaintiffs' excuses for failure to correctly filea Note of Issue. L 2 of 7 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/18/2018 01:54 PM INDEX NO. 157939/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 92 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/18/2018 DEFENDANT GREGG HAS PROPERLY MET HIS BURDEN OF PROOF b AS TO SERIOUS INJURY THRESHOLD injury" 6. "Serious as defined in Article 5102(d) of the Insurance Law is defined as: • Death; • Dismemberment; • Significant disfigurement; • A fracture; • Loss of a fetus; • Permanent loss of use of a body organ, member, function or system; • Permanent consequential limitation of use of a body function or system; • Significant limitation of use of a function or body system; • A determined or impairment of a non-permanent nature which medically injury prevents the injured person from performing substantially all of the material acts which constitute such person's usual and customary daily activities for not less than 90 days during the 180 days immediately following the occurrence of the injury or impairment. injury" 7. Plaintiffs fail to meet any of the required categories of "serious and as such, have not met their burden of raising any true triable issues of fact which would warrant denial of Defendant Gregg's motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs' 8. Despite assertions to the contrary, they fail to adequately counter Defendant Gregg's motion and demonstrate the existence of material fact necessitating a trialof this matter and denial of defendant's underlying motion. injury" 9. It is respectfully submitted that the issue of "serious has been properly raised by defendant. In order to establish entitlement to summary judgment based on the injury" "serious requirement, defendants have the initial burden to submit evidentiary injury" proof in admissible form demonstrating that plaintiff has suffered a "serious as defined by Insurance Law §5102(d). Lowe v. Bennett, 122 A.D.2d 728, 511 N.Y.S. 2d 603 (1st Dept. 1986) aff'd 69 N.Y.2d 701 (1986). 10. As stated in Defendant Gregg's moving papers, and based on the reports of orthopedists Robert S. Goldstein, M.D. and Edward Toriello, M.D., and neurologist 3 of 7 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/18/2018 01:54 PM INDEX NO. 157939/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 92 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/18/2018 Adam N. Bender, M.D., there was no evidence tending to disclose the presence of any E injury which could be characterized as a "serious injury". Defendant Gregg has properly raised the issue of "serious injury". These reports are annexed to Defendant Gregg's motion for summary judgment as Exhibits K, L, M and N. injury" 11. Where the issue of "serious is properly raised by defendant, plaintiff has the burden of coming forward with evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact relating to "serious injury". Licari v. Elliott, 57 N.Y.2d 230, 235, 455 N.Y.S.2d 570 (1982); Zoldas v. Louise Cab Corp.,., 108 A.D.2d 378, 489 N.Y.S.2d 468 (1st Dept. 1985). Failure to submit sufficient evidentiary proof in admissible form is fatal to plaintiff's claim and summary judgment must be granted to the defendant. Assaf v. Ropog Cab Corp.,., 153 A.D.2D 520, 544 n.y.s.2D 834 (1st Dept. 1989). In the case at bar, Plaintiffs have failed to submit such evidence. SCOTT LEIST'S AFFIDAVIT IS INSUFFICIENT TO RAISE TRIABLE ¯¯ ISSUES OF FACT 12. Neither Plaintiff Michelle Bowman nor Treakeava Bowman sustained a Plaintiffs' 'significant, partial, permanent disability'. heavy reliance on chiropractor Scott Leist's diagnosis and affidavit is misplaced. Mr. Leist's affidavit is conclusory and tailored to meet the statutory requirements. The Appellate Division, Second Department, had held that affidavits submitted by plaintiffs medical providers were incapable of raising a triable issue of fact where "their statements of permanent injury were patently requirements." tailored to meet the statutory Castano v. Synergy Gas Corp.,.,250 A.D.2d (2nd 640, 672 N.Y.S.2d 417 (2 Dept. 1998). 13. Similarly, in Lopez v. Senatore.. 65 N.Y.2d 1017, 494 N.Y.S.2d 101 (1985), the 'permanent' Court of Appeals, held, '%he mere repetition of the word in the affidavit of a 4 of 7 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/18/2018 01:54 PM INDEX NO. 157939/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 92 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/18/2018 injury,' treating physician is insufficient to establish 'serious and that summary judgment E should be granted for defendant where the plaintiff's evidence is limited to conclusory requirements." assertions tailored to meet statutory Id. 14. In Hutchinson v. Beth Cab Corp.,. 204 A.D.2d 151. 612 N.Y.S.2d 10, 11 (1st Dept. 1994), the Court granted summary judgment to the defendant even though both plaintiff's physicians predicted that the plaintiffs injuries would be permanent. The Court reasoned that although the physicians suggested a permanent injury, they did not suggest that such injuries amounted to a permanent loss of a body organ or system. M (- Cases such as this illustrate the strict construction that Courts place on interpreting the plaintiff's burden in meeting the serious injury requirement. PLAINTIFFS' MRI'S AND CT SCANS DO NOT DEMONSTRATE INJURY" A "SERIOUS 15. The Plaintiffs error in arguing that the findings of the abnormal CT Scan of Michelle Bowman's lumbar spine and cervical spine the abnormal MRI of Treakeava Bowman's lumbar spine and cervical spine demonstrate they sustained a serious injury as a result of the alleged automobile accident. In fact, the alleged findings aren't indicative of anything, and itis most certainly not prima facie evidence of a serious injury. 16. In Meely v. 4 G's Truck Renting Co., Inc., 16 A.D.3d 26, 789 N.Y.S.2d 277 (2nd Dept. 2005), where the Appellate Division, Second Department, held, "a defendant who submits admissible proof that a plaintiff has a full range of motion and that he or she suffers from no disabilities has established a prima facie case that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d), despite the discs." existence of an MRI report which shows herniated or bulging Id. at 30. See also, 5 of 7 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/18/2018 01:54 PM INDEX NO. 157939/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 92 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/18/2018 (2nd Kearse v. New York City Tr. Auth., 16 A.D.3d 45, 789 N.Y.S.2d 281 Dept. 2005); 8 (2nd Diaz v. Tumer, 306 A.D.2d 241, 242, 761 N.Y.S.2d 93 Dept. 2003); Figueroa v. (2"4 e' Westbury Trans, 304 A.D.2d 614, .'t 757N.Y.S.2d 756 Dept. .»); 2003); Fauk v. . Jenkins. (2nd 301 A.D.2d 564, 565, 754 N.Y.S.2d 317 Dept. 2003); Bernabel v. Perullo, 300 (2nd A.D.2d 330, 331, 751 N.Y.S.2d 314 Dept. 2002); Malpica v. Laverene, 294 A.D.2d (2nd 340, 741 N.Y.S.2d 731 Dept. 2002); Espinal v. Galicia, 290 A.D.2d 528, 737 (2nd N.Y.S.2d 102 Dept. 2002); Duldulao v. City of New York, 284 A.D.2d 296, 297, 725 (2nd (1" ..S.»8 N.Y.S.2d 380 Dept. . 2001); Brown v. . Achy, 9 A.D.3d 30, 31, 776 ..S. N.Y.S.2d 56 F Dept. 2004). Clearly, it iswell settled that MRI findings without more are insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact. 17. Mere findings of bulging and herniated intervertebral discs does not establish a injury" prima facie case of "serious absent proof in accordance with the statutory requirements. In Descovich v. Blieka, 279 A.D.2d 499, 718 N.Y.S.2d 870 (2nd Dept. 2001), the Second Department dismissed a plaintiff's cause of action noting: Although the plaintiff's treating physician submitted an affidavit indicating that the plaintiff suffered from a herniated disc and bulging discs, such injuries do not alone constitute serious injury. Rather the plaintiff is still required to provide objective evidence of the extent of degree of the physical evidence of the extent or degree of the physical limitations resulting from such injuries and their duration...In this respect, plaintiff's evidence was lacking, and thus, the defendant was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint. 18. In Greene v. Miranda, 272 A.D.2d 441, 708 N.Y.S.2d 310 (2nd Dept. 2000), the Appellate Division granted defendant's motion for summary judgment and dismissed plaintiff's complaint noting that while the plaintiff submitted evidence that the plaintiff suffered from herniated discs and a bulging discs, 6 of 7 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/18/2018 01:54 PM INDEX NO. 157939/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 92 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/18/2018 plaintiff failed to provide any objective evidence of the extent or degree of the 8 alleged physical limitations resulting from these disc injuries and their duration. 19. Plaintiffs have failed to set forth any concrete evidence in admissible form to support their position. They have not provided any competent evidence to demonstrate that they sustained anything more than strain injuries with minimal limitation of motion, injury" which has been held to not rise to the level of "serious as contemplated by New York Insurance Law § 5102(d). I WHEREFORE, it is respectfully requested that this Court grant Defendant MARION GREGG's motion for summary judgment in its entirety together with such other and further relief as this Court deems just, proper, and equitable. Dated: New York, New York January 18, 2018 /s/ NOREEN CONROY DOMINGO NOREEN CONROY DOMINGO 7 of 7