McGovern v. Walls

201 A.D.2d 628, 607 N.Y.S.2d 964, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1464
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 22, 1994
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 201 A.D.2d 628 (McGovern v. Walls) 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
McGovern v. Walls, 201 A.D.2d 628, 607 N.Y.S.2d 964, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1464 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the. defendant John Walls appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (DiNoto, J.), dated November 20, 1991, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as it is asserted against him.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant John Walls moved for summary judgment, contending that the plaintiff Eileen McGovern did not sustain a "serious injury” within the purview of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see, Licari v Elliott, 57 NY2d 230). In support of his motion, the defendant Walls relied, inter alia, on an unsworn report prepared by his examining physician, and two unsworn reports prepared by Ms. McGovern’s own treating physicians.

A moving defendant may rely on the unsworn reports of a plaintiff’s own physicians in support of a motion for summary judgment. The reports relied upon here by Walls do not demonstrate that Ms. McGovern suffered a "serious injury”. Ms. McGovern, however, by submitting a physician’s affidavit in admissible form, carried her burden of establishing a prima facie case of "serious injury” pursuant to Insurance Law [629]*629§ 5102 (d) (see, Hochlerin v Tolins, 186 AD2d 538; Pagano v Kingsbury, 182 AD2d 268; Spezia v De Marco, 173 AD2d 462; Bates v Peeples, 171 AD2d 635; Morsellino v Frankel, 161 AD2d 748; Lynch v Adirondack Tr. Lines, 169 AD2d 904). Accordingly, denial of the defendant Walls’ motion for summary judgment was proper. Mangano, P. J., Balletta, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Mueller v. SEATAINER TRANSPORT, LTD.
816 F. Supp. 2d 206 (W.D. New York, 2011)
Gualtieri v. Farina
283 F. Supp. 2d 917 (S.D. New York, 2003)
Williams v. Ritchie
139 F. Supp. 2d 330 (E.D. New York, 2001)
Jiminez v. Valenzuela
203 A.D.2d 249 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
201 A.D.2d 628, 607 N.Y.S.2d 964, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1464, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcgovern-v-walls-nyappdiv-1994.