Parisi v. Levine

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Parisi v. Levine

246 A.D.2d 583, 667 N.Y.S.2d 283, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 435

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

DecidedJanuary 20, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 246 A.D.2d 583 (Parisi v. Levine) 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

Parisi v. Levine, 246 A.D.2d 583, 667 N.Y.S.2d 283, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 435 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Lally, J.), entered January 3, 1997, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the first cause of action upon the ground that the plaintiff failed to sustain a “serious injury” as defined by Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant presented sufficient evidence to demonstrate, as a matter of law, that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see, Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957; Licari v Elliott, 57 NY2d 230). In opposition, the plaintiff proffered a purported affidavit of her treating physician. However, the statement prepared by Dr. Alan Genicoff was neither sworn to nor affirmed to be true under the penalties of perjury and thus did not constitute competent evidence (see, CPLR 2106; Moore v Tappen, 242 AD2d 526; Reeves v Scopaz, 227 AD2d 606). Miller, J. P., Ritter, Sullivan, Santucci and McGinity, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Lally, J.), entered January 3, 1997, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the first cause of action upon the ground that the plaintiff failed to sustain a “serious injury” as defined by Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant presented sufficient evidence to demonstrate, as a matter of law, that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see, Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957; Licari v Elliott, 57 NY2d 230). In opposition, the plaintiff proffered a purported affidavit of her treating physician. However, the statement prepared by Dr. Alan Genicoff was neither sworn to nor affirmed to be true under the penalties of perjury and thus did not constitute competent evidence (see, CPLR 2106; Moore v Tappen, 242 AD2d 526; Reeves v Scopaz, 227 AD2d 606). Miller, J. P., Ritter, Sullivan, Santucci and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

246 A.D.2d 583, 667 N.Y.S.2d 283, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 435, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/parisi-v-levine-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack