186 A.D.2d 109 (1992)

Elaine Jacondino et al., Appellants, v. Anthony Lovis et al., Respondents

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Second Department.

September 14, 1992

Ordered that the order dated May 29, 1990, is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that the appeal from the order dated October 23, 1990, is dismissed; and it is further,

Ordered that the defendants are awarded one bill of costs.

On August 28, 1987, the plaintiff Elaine Jacondino was injured when her automobile collided with a vehicle driven by the defendant Anthony Lovis and owned by the defendant Deborah Lovis. The injured plaintiff and her husband subsequently commenced the instant action against Anthony and Deborah Lovis, and the defendants moved for summary judgment, contending that Elaine Jacondino had not sustained a "serious injury" as defined by Insurance Law § 5102 (d). In support of the motion, the defendants relied upon an unsworn report prepared by their examining physician which stated that there was no objective evidence that the plaintiff Elaine Jacondino suffered from "continuing injury". The defendants additionally relied upon unsworn reports prepared by the plaintiff's treating chiropractor, and by a neurologist who examined her shortly after the accident.

Contrary to the plaintiffs' contention, we find that the Supreme Court properly awarded summary judgment to the defendants. Although the unsworn report of the defendants' examining physician did not, standing alone, establish their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see, Pagano v Kingsbury, 182 A.D.2d 268; Marsh v Wolfson, 186 A.D.2d 115 [decided herewith]), the reports of the plaintiff's neurologist and chiropractor demonstrated that she had not sustained a "serious injury" within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see, Georgia v Ramautar, 180 A.D.2d 713; Maenza v Letkajornsook, 172 A.D.2d 500; Delfino v Davey, 159 A.D.2d 604). In order to defeat the defendants' motion for summary judgment, the plaintiffs were thus required to produce evidentiary proof in admissible form demonstrating the existence of an issue of fact, or to provide an "acceptable excuse for [the] failure to meet the strict requirement of tender in admissible form" (Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 562; Pagano v Kingsbury, supra). Since the plaintiffs failed to submit any medical evidence, in admissible form, which demonstrated that the plaintiff Elaine Jacondino had sustained a "serious injury" within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d), or to offer any excuse for the failure to do so, the defendants' motion for summary judgment was properly granted (see, Pagano v Kingsbury, supra).

Furthermore, the plaintiffs' motion, although denominated as one for renewal, was based primarily upon evidence which could have been obtained at the time of the original motion, and the plaintiffs offered no excuse for their failure to initially present this evidence in opposition to the defendants' motion for summary judgment (see, Matter of Barnes v State of New York, 159 A.D.2d 753; Huttner v McDaid, 151 A.D.2d 547; Matter of Kadish v Colombo, 121 A.D.2d 722; McRory v Craft Architectural Metals Corp., 112 A.D.2d 358). Therefore, the motion was in actuality one for reargument, and since no appeal lies from the denial of a motion for reargument, the appeal from the order dated October 23, 1990, is dismissed (see, Chiarella v Quitoni, 178 A.D.2d 502; Huttner v McDaid, supra).


1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases