SEMINARA v. GROSSMAN

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof which, upon reargument, denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment and substituting therefor a provision which, upon reargument, adheres to the original determination; as so modified the order is affirmed, with costs to the appellants.

The defendants submitted proof in admissible form which established that the plaintiff had not suffered a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). The burden thus shifted to the plaintiff to demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of fact ( see, Gaddy v. Eyler, 79 N.Y.2d 955). Upon our review of the record, we find that the plaintiff failed to meet this burden ( see, McHaffie v. Antieri, 190 A.D.2d 780; Beckett v. Conte, 176 A.D.2d 774; Philpotts v. Petrovic, 160 A.D.2d 856). Thus, the defendants were entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Rosenblatt, J. P., Sullivan, Joy, Altman and Luciano, JJ., concur.