Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Reilly Jr., J.), entered July 30, 2013 in Schenectady County, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
In April 2010, plaintiff, a pedestrian, was struck by defendant’s vehicle as he was backing it out of his driveway. Plaintiff brought this action alleging that he sustained certain psychological and physical injuries as a result of the accident. Following joinder of issue, defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the accident. Supreme Court granted the motion, and plaintiff appeals.
Defendant made a prima facie showing that plaintiff did not
In light of the proof that plaintiffs injuries were related to preexisting conditions, plaintiff was required to come forward with “objective medical evidence distinguishing his preexisting condition[s] from the injuries claimed to have been caused by this accident” (Thomas v Ku, 112 AD3d 1200, 1201 [2013] [internal quotation marks, citations and brackets omitted]; see Pommells v Perez, 4 NY3d 566, 580 [2005]; Russell v Cornell Univ., 110 AD3d 1236, 1237 [2013]). In opposition to the motion, plaintiff submitted the report of Farag Aboelsaad, a physician who performed an independent medical examination upon plaintiff and reviewed his medical records. Although Aboelsaad concluded that plaintiffs preexisting neck and lower back pain were exacerbated by the April 2010 accident,1 he failed to set forth “objective evidence differentiating plaintiffs condition prior to the [April 2010] accident from [his] condition after the [April 2010] accident or distinguishing the injury allegedly sustained in that accident from the preexisting injuries” (Russell v Cornell Univ., 110 AD3d at 1238; see Anderson v Capital Dist. Transp. Auth., 74 AD3d 1616, 1617 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 709 [2010]; Falkner v Hand, 61 AD3d 1153, 1154 [2009]; Coston v McGray, 49 AD3d 934, 935 [2008]). With respect to his alleged psychological injuries, plaintiff proffered the unsworn report of a psychologist who opined that his psychological status
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
1.
Aboelsaad declined to comment on plaintiffs shoulder problems and neuropsychological issues, noting that he would “leave that for the specialists.”
2.
In any event, such report fails to set forth an adequate assessment of how plaintiffs psychological condition is causally related to the subject accident (see Clark v Basco, 83 AD3d 1136, 1139 [2011]; Bissonette v Compo, 307 AD2d 673, 674 [2003]; Kristel v Mitchell, 270 AD2d 598, 599 [2000]).