Feintuch v. Grella

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Feintuch v. Grella

209 A.D.2d 377, 619 N.Y.S.2d 593, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11022

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 7, 1994·Published·Cited by 13 cases

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Murphy, J.), dated June 10, 1993, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiffs failed to sustain a serious injury as defined by Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The defendant’s motion papers made out a prima facie case for summary judgment. The plaintiffs submitted, in opposition to the motion for summary judgment, the affirmations of a chiropractor, and annexed unsworn reports. The affirmations of a chiropractor do not constitute competent evidence (see, CPLR 2106). In any case, the affirmations contained conclusory assertions which were insufficient to defeat the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Thompson, J. P., Miller, O’Brien, Santucci and Joy, 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 defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Murphy, J.), dated June 10, 1993, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiffs failed to sustain a serious injury as defined by Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The defendant’s motion papers made out a prima facie case for summary judgment. The plaintiffs submitted, in opposition to the motion for summary judgment, the affirmations of a chiropractor, and annexed unsworn reports. The affirmations of a chiropractor do not constitute competent evidence (see, CPLR 2106). In any case, the affirmations contained conclusory assertions which were insufficient to defeat the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Thompson, J. P., Miller, O’Brien, Santucci and Joy, JJ., concur.

Feintuch v. Grella, 209 A.D.2d 377, 619 N.Y.S.2d 593, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11022 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

209 A.D.2d 377 (Feintuch v. Grella) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related