HSU v. BRISCOE PROTECTIVE SYSTEMS

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendants established, prima facie, their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by tendering proof in admissible form that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury to her jaw 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; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Neither the plaintiff nor her examining dentist adequately explained the lengthy gap in the plaintiff's treatment between her termination of treatment two to three months post-accident and the evaluation by her examining dentist in October 2005 ( see Pommells v Perez, 4 NY3d 566, 574; Zinger v Zylberberg, 35 AD3d 851; Hasner v Budnik, 35 AD3d 366; Caracci v Miller, 34 AD3d 515). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.