Farjam v. Paul Michael Management, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Farjam v. Paul Michael Management, Inc.

253 A.D.2d 535, 676 N.Y.S.2d 512, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9216

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided August 31, 1998·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Underwood, Jr., J.), entered August 20, 1997, which, upon granting the defendants’ respective motions for summary judgment, dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The medical reports affirmed under penalty of perjury (see, CPLR 2106) which the defendants submitted in support of their respective motions for summary judgment made out a prima facie case that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury as defined by Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

In opposition to the motions for summary judgment, the plaintiff relied solely upon the unsworn medical reports of his medical experts and failed to proffer an acceptable excuse for his failure to submit evidence in the form of affidavits or affirmations (see, Pagano v Kingsbury, 182 AD2d 268). Accordingly, [536] the plaintiff failed to overcome the defendants’ prima facie showing. Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Santucci, Florio and Mc-Ginity, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Underwood, Jr., J.), entered August 20, 1997, which, upon granting the defendants’ respective motions for summary judgment, dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The medical reports affirmed under penalty of perjury (see, CPLR 2106) which the defendants submitted in support of their respective motions for summary judgment made out a prima facie case that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury as defined by Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

In opposition to the motions for summary judgment, the plaintiff relied solely upon the unsworn medical reports of his medical experts and failed to proffer an acceptable excuse for his failure to submit evidence in the form of affidavits or affirmations (see, Pagano v Kingsbury, 182 AD2d 268). Accordingly, [536] the plaintiff failed to overcome the defendants’ prima facie showing. Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Santucci, Florio and Mc-Ginity, JJ., concur.

Farjam v. Paul Michael Management, Inc., 253 A.D.2d 535, 676 N.Y.S.2d 512, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9216 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

253 A.D.2d 535 (Farjam v. Paul Michael Management, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related