DURYEA v. ZUNG

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The injured plaintiff suffered a cervical strain resulting in two episodes of pain and stiffness more than one year apart. In each episode, her recovery was relatively prompt and complete, and none of her several treating physicians discerned any abnormalities or evidence of injury in her X-ray or magnetic resonance imaging examination. Under these circumstances, the injured plaintiff has demonstrated only a mild or slight injury rather than a permanent or significant limitation of use of a body function or system (see, Insurance Law § 5102 [d]; see, e.g., Licari v Elliott, 57 N.Y.2d 230; Konco v E.T.C. Leasing Corp., 160 A.D.2d 680; Christianson v Metropolitan Suburban Bus Auth., 157 A.D.2d 703; McLiverty v Urban, 131 A.D.2d 449). Furthermore, her subjective complaints of intermittent discomfort are insufficient to constitute prima facie evidence of serious injury (see, Scheer v Koubek, 70 N.Y.2d 678; Beckett v Conte, 176 A.D.2d 774; Philpotts v Petrovic, 160 A.D.2d 856). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.