WORLEY v. GRIFFITH

ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The Supreme Court improperly denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The defendants established a prima facie case that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d) (see, Grossman v. Wright, 268 A.D.2d 79 [2d Dept., May 8, 2000]; Gaddy v. Eyler, 79 N.Y.2d 955; Flanagan v. Hoeg, 212 A.D.2d 756), thereby shifting the burden to the plaintiff to raise a triable question of fact on that issue (see, Licari v. Elliott, 57 N.Y.2d 230). The plaintiff failed to meet this burden, as the physician's affidavit he submitted in opposition to the motion consisted of nothing more than "conclusory assertions tailored to meet statutory requirements" (Lopez v. Senatore, 65 N.Y.2d 1017, 1019; see, Grossman v. Wright, supra; Medina v. Zalman Reis Associates, 239 A.D.2d 394; Marshall v. Albano, 182 A.D.2d 614). Accordingly, the defendants' motion should have been granted.