McHAFFIE v. ANTIERI

Ordered that the appeal from the order dated March 13, 1991, is dismissed, as no appeal lies from an order denying reargument; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated October 9, 1990, is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs, are awarded one bill of costs.

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 (e.g., Pagano v Kingsbury, 182 A.D.2d 268; see also, Grasso v Angerami, 79 N.Y.2d 813). The plaintiff failed to meet this burden.

That the plaintiff experiences "intermittent pain in the left knee" is insufficient to establish that she suffers from a serious injury (see, e.g., Scheer v Koubek, 70 N.Y.2d 678; Duryea v Zung, 185 A.D.2d 912; Tipping-Cestari v Kilhenny, 174 A.D.2d 663). There was no proof that this knee condition resulted in an objectively measured or quantified limitation on the plaintiff's ability to walk or bend (see, Philpotts v Petrovic, 160 A.D.2d 856; O'Neill v Rogers, 163 A.D.2d 466). The opinions expressed by the plaintiff's experts as to causation and as to permanence were stated in wholly conclusory terms, and are thus without evidentiary value (see, e.g., Gaddy v Eyler, 79 N.Y.2d 955; Lopez v Senatore, 65 N.Y.2d 1017; Cannizzaro v King, 187 A.D.2d 842; Flater v Brennan, 173 A.D.2d 945).

Accordingly, the order dated October 9, 1990, is affirmed.