From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Grasso v. Angerami

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
May 9, 1991
173 A.D.2d 981 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Opinion

May 9, 1991

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Schenectady County (Doran, J.).


On October 10, 1983, plaintiff's motor vehicle was struck from behind triggering this personal injury action against defendant. Defendant moved for summary judgment arguing that plaintiff had not sustained a serious injury as defined by Insurance Law § 5102 (d). Plaintiff's proof in opposition consisted of his affidavit and an unsworn letter-report from his doctor which included copies of two pages of office notes. Finding this proof to be legally insufficient in form, Supreme Court granted defendant's motion and dismissed the complaint. Immediately thereafter plaintiff procured a letter-report from his doctor in a proper sworn format, but delayed moving for renewal or reargument for five months without an excuse. This motion was denied.

To the extent that plaintiff's motion may have been for reargument, we note that the denial of a motion for reargument is not appealable (Matter of Kempf v Town of Esopus, 92 A.D.2d 1076, 1077).

Plaintiff appeals seeking an exception to the rule that medical evidence to establish a serious injury must be in admissible form (see, Stowell v Huntley, 154 A.D.2d 810, 811; see also, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557). The unsworn doctor's report and office notes initially submitted by plaintiff in opposition to defendant's motion do not suffice to rebut the sworn opinion of defendant's medical expert (see, Rohr v Hoyt, 159 A.D.2d 980). We see no reason to depart from the long-established rule.

Finally, to the extent that plaintiff characterized his second motion as one for renewal based upon the medical report which had been prepared in evidentiary form, we find that Supreme Court's denial was proper. Plaintiff neglected to offer a valid excuse for his failure to have provided the medical report in proper form in the first instance or for his delay of five months in making the motion after it was put in the proper form (see, Foley v Roche, 68 A.D.2d 558, 568).

Orders affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P.J., Casey, Weiss, Yesawich, Jr. and Harvey, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Grasso v. Angerami

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
May 9, 1991
173 A.D.2d 981 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
Case details for

Grasso v. Angerami

Case Details

Full title:JOHN N. GRASSO, Appellant, v. KELLY M. ANGERAMI, Respondent

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

Date published: May 9, 1991

Citations

173 A.D.2d 981 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
569 N.Y.S.2d 496

Citing Cases

Siegel v. Wank

In addition, plaintiff offered Watson's office records which contained an entry dated November 11, 1990…

Parmisani v. Grasso

In opposition to the motion, plaintiff submitted his own affidavit and the affidavit of his attorney. The…