Jiminez v. Valenzuela

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jiminez v. Valenzuela

203 A.D.2d 249, 612 N.Y.S.2d 888, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3231

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 4, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 203 A.D.2d 249 (Jiminez v. Valenzuela) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jiminez v. Valenzuela, 203 A.D.2d 249, 612 N.Y.S.2d 888, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3231 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., arising out of an automobile accident, the plaintiffs Carlos Ramirez, Jose Ramirez, and Ana Ramirez appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Posner, J.), dated June 25, 1992, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the second, third, and fourth causes of action.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The appellants’ sole contention on appeal is that the defen[250]*250dants’ summary judgment motion was inadequate under Pagano v Kingsbury (182 AD2d 268) because the defendants did not submit sworn physicians’ affidavits in support of their motion, while the appellants opposed the motion with affidavits of one of their doctors. However, the defendants submitted the plaintiffs’ hospital records in support of their motion. It is well settled that a defendant may submit the plaintiff’s medical records in support of a motion for summary judgment (see, e.g., McGovern v Walls, 201 AD2d 628; Gleason v Huber, 188 AD2d 581; Hochlerin v Tolins, 186 AD2d 538). Therefore, the appellants’ contention is without merit. Thompson, J. P., Rosenblatt, Ritter, Friedmann and Krausman, 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, etc., arising out of an automobile accident, the plaintiffs Carlos Ramirez, Jose Ramirez, and Ana Ramirez appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Posner, J.), dated June 25, 1992, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the second, third, and fourth causes of action.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The appellants’ sole contention on appeal is that the defen[250]*250dants’ summary judgment motion was inadequate under Pagano v Kingsbury (182 AD2d 268) because the defendants did not submit sworn physicians’ affidavits in support of their motion, while the appellants opposed the motion with affidavits of one of their doctors. However, the defendants submitted the plaintiffs’ hospital records in support of their motion. It is well settled that a defendant may submit the plaintiff’s medical records in support of a motion for summary judgment (see, e.g., McGovern v Walls, 201 AD2d 628; Gleason v Huber, 188 AD2d 581; Hochlerin v Tolins, 186 AD2d 538). Therefore, the appellants’ contention is without merit. Thompson, J. P., Rosenblatt, Ritter, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

203 A.D.2d 249, 612 N.Y.S.2d 888, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3231, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jiminez-v-valenzuela-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack