From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Caruso v. Rotondi

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 9, 1998
248 A.D.2d 425 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

March 9, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff's statements in his affidavit concerning his inability to perform his usual and customary daily activities for three to four months after the accident, without more, were insufficient to defeat the defendant's motion for summary judgment (see, Cullum v. Washington, 227 A.D.2d 370). Notably, the plaintiff, a retired widower who lived alone, failed to explain who performed household chores and shopped for him during this period of time.

Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the medical reports which were submitted by the defendant in support of the motion were properly affirmed pursuant to CPLR 2106 and, therefore, had "the same force and effect of an affidavit" (CPLR 2106).

Mangano, P. J., Miller, Pizzuto and Krausman, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Caruso v. Rotondi

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 9, 1998
248 A.D.2d 425 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

Caruso v. Rotondi

Case Details

Full title:JERRY M. CARUSO, Appellant, v. MICHAEL P. ROTONDI, Respondent

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Mar 9, 1998

Citations

248 A.D.2d 425 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
668 N.Y.S.2d 948

Citing Cases

Walcott v. Hsuehli

The respondent Marcia Walcott stated in an affidavit that she and her infant son, the respondent Shane Dixon,…

Sullivan v. Johnson

In response to the motion, the plaintiff has submitted opposition, which includes affidavits by the plaintiff…