Opinion
2009-1990 Q C.
Decided August 13, 2010.
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Thomas D. Raffaele, J.), entered May 28, 2009. The order granted plaintiff's motion for leave to renew a prior motion by defendant for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and, upon renewal, denied defendant's motion.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed without costs.
PRESENT: PESCE, P.J., GOLIA and RIOS, JJ.
Plaintiff commenced this action to recover for personal injuries allegedly sustained in a motor vehicle accident. Defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). The Civil Court granted defendant's motion, finding that defendant had made out a prima facie case and that, among other things, the affirmed reports of plaintiff's medical provider in Florida, submitted in opposition to defendant's motion, were not in admissible form, as the doctor was not licensed in the State of New York and, thus, was not authorized to execute an affirmation under CPLR 2106. The court noted, however, that had the reports been in admissible form, they would have been sufficient to demonstrate a serious injury.
Plaintiff thereafter moved for leave to renew defendant's motion and, upon renewal, to deny defendant's motion for summary judgment on the ground that triable issues of fact exist. In support of the motion, plaintiff submitted an affidavit from his Florida medical provider, sworn to before a notary public commissioned by the State of Florida, and resubmitted the provider's reports. The Civil Court granted plaintiff's motion for leave to renew and, upon renewal, denied defendant's motion for summary judgment on the condition that plaintiff's attorneys pay the sum of $100 to defendant's attorneys as costs, and the sum of $100 to the New York State Lawyers Fund for Client Protection. This appeal by defendant ensued in which the sole issue raised is that the Civil Court erred in granting plaintiff leave to renew.
Contrary to defendant's contention, the Civil Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting the branch of plaintiff's motion seeking leave to renew, thereby allowing plaintiff the opportunity to submit its papers in proper form ( see CPLR 2221 [e]; Arkin v Resnick , 68 AD3d 692; Simpson v Tommy Hilfiger U.S.A., Inc. , 48 AD3d 389 ; Smith v Allstate Ins. Co. , 38 AD3d 522 ; Joseph v Joseph , 24 Misc 3d 141[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 51719[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th 13th Jud Dists 2009]; see also Shaw v Looking Glass Assoc., LP , 8 AD3d 100 ; Acosta v Rubin , 2 AD3d 657 ; Ramos v Dekhtyar, 301 AD2d 428). We note that defendant has raised no objection to the form of plaintiff's resubmitted papers.
Accordingly, the order is affirmed.
Pesce, P.J., Golia and Rios, JJ., concur.