Legrow v. Stein

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Legrow v. Stein

256 A.D.2d 314, 682 N.Y.S.2d 611, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13197

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

DecidedDecember 7, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 256 A.D.2d 314 (Legrow v. Stein) 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

Legrow v. Stein, 256 A.D.2d 314, 682 N.Y.S.2d 611, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13197 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Bucaria, J.), dated November 25, 1997, which granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability and denied his cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the plaintiffs’ motion is denied, the defendant’s cross motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The Supreme Court erred in denying the defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the injured plaintiff had not sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). The [315]*315defendant’s submissions established a prima facie case that the injured plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury in the underlying automobile collision (see, Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955).

The plaintiffs’ opposition papers were insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact. The medical records and reports submitted by the plaintiffs in opposition to the cross motion were not in admissible form, and therefore, should not have been considered (see, Grasso v Angerami, 79 NY2d 813, 814). Mangano, P. J., Joy, Friedmann and Goldstein, 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., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Bucaria, J.), dated November 25, 1997, which granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability and denied his cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the plaintiffs’ motion is denied, the defendant’s cross motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The Supreme Court erred in denying the defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the injured plaintiff had not sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). The [315]*315defendant’s submissions established a prima facie case that the injured plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury in the underlying automobile collision (see, Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955).

The plaintiffs’ opposition papers were insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact. The medical records and reports submitted by the plaintiffs in opposition to the cross motion were not in admissible form, and therefore, should not have been considered (see, Grasso v Angerami, 79 NY2d 813, 814). Mangano, P. J., Joy, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 A.D.2d 314, 682 N.Y.S.2d 611, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13197, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/legrow-v-stein-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack