green
Positive treatment
Doctrinal family: Toure v. Avis Rent a Car Systems… ↗
Issue: plaintiff to rebut presumptionNY ↗
Issue: moving defendantNY ↗
31.7 score
Treatment trajectory · 1992 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1992
2009
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Saez v. Lyka Taxi Inc.
If defendants have made such a showing, the burden shifts to plaintiff to submit evidence in admissible form to establish that there are triable issues of fact (see Franchini v Palmieri, 1 NY3d 536, 536 [2003]; Grasso v Angerami, 79 NY2d 813,815 [1991]). 157397/2021 SAEZ, EDMIN vs.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
McCarthy v. Hameed
Plaintiff, however, submitted only an unsworn medical report of a physician who had examined her on behalf of defendants, which did not constitute proof in admissible form ( see Grasso v Angerami , 79 NY2d 813, 814 [1991]; Dann v Yeh , 55 AD3d 1439, 1441 [4th Dept 2008]; Thousand v Hedberg , 249 AD2d 941, 941 [4th Dept 1998]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Flowers v. Harborcenter Development, LLC
Here, the three witness statements submitted by plaintiff were unsworn and therefore not in admissible form, and the court should not have considered them in determining whether plaintiff met his initial burden of proof (see Grasso v Angerami, 79 NY2d 813, 814-815 [1991]; Guanopatin v Flushing Acquisition Holdings, LLC, 127 AD3d 812, 812-813 [2d Dept 2015]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Canals v. Lai
Furthermore, the plaintiff failed to establish, through admissible medical evidence, that the new injuries were caused by the subject accident (see CPLR 2215; Grasso v Angerami, 79 NY2d 813, 814-815 [1991]; Itzkowitz v King Kullen Grocery Co., Inc., 22 AD3d at 637 ; Fuentes v City of New York, 3 AD3d 549, 550 [2004]) or that there was a causal connection between the new injuries and the original injuries alleged (see Daly-Caffrey v Licausi, 70 AD3d 884, 885 [2010]; Kyong Hi Wohn v County of Suffolk, 237 AD2d 412, 413 [1997]; Simino v St.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Cebron v. Tuncoglu
The medical records submitted by the Serino plaintiffs in opposition to the Tuncoglu defendants’ motion were not sworn, and were not relied upon by the Tuncoglu defendants’ examining physicians, and, therefore, cannot be considered (see Grasso v Angerami, 79 NY2d 813, 814-815 [1991]; Zelman v Mauro, 81 AD3d 936, 937 [2011]; Kearse v New York City Tr.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Cebron v. Tuncoglu
The medical records submitted by the Serino plaintiffs in opposition to the Tuncoglu defendants’ motion were not sworn, and were not relied upon by the Tuncoglu defendants’ examining physicians, and, therefore, cannot be considered (see Grasso v Angerami, 79 NY2d 813, 814-815 [1991]; Zelman v Mauro, 81 AD3d 936, 937 [2011]; Kearse v New York City Tr.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Pena v. Slater
The statement was not in admissible form and plaintiff did not provide “ ‘any excuse for his failure to provide the [statement] in proper form’ ” (Barile v Carroll, 280 AD2d 988, 989 [4th Dept 2001], quoting Grasso v Angerami, 79 NY2d 813, 814 [1991]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Pena v. Slater
The statement was not in admissible form and plaintiff did not provide “ ‘any excuse for his failure to provide the [statement] in proper form’ ” (Barile v Carroll, 280 AD2d 988, 989 [4th Dept 2001], quoting Grasso v Angerami, 79 NY2d 813, 814 [1991]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Diaz v. Chaudhry
Upon renewal, the vast majority of the plaintiffs medical submissions in opposition to the defendants’ showing failed to raise a triable issue of fact since they were not in admissible form (see Grasso v Angerami, 79 NY2d 813, 814-815 [1991]; Kolodziej v Savarese, 88 AD3d 851 [2011]; Capriglione v Rivera, 83 AD3d 639, 640 [2011]), while the contents of the remainder of the submissions were factually insufficient.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Sauter ex rel. Sauter v. Calabretta
Although there is no question that a fracture constitutes a serious injury (see § 5102 [d]), plaintiff is not entitled to summary judgment because the radiologist’s report was not submitted in admissible form (see generally Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345, 350 [2002]; Grasso v Angerami, 79 NY2d 813, 815 [1991]; Zuckerman, 49 NY2d at 562 ).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Karpinos v. Cora
In opposition, the plaintiff submitted medical reports that were not in admissible form, and, therefore, were insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Grasso v Angerami, 79 NY2d 813, 814-815 [1991]; cf. Kearse v New York City Tr.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Quintana v. Arena Transport, Inc.
The report of the plaintiff’s treating expert in physical medicine and rehabilitation was unaffirmed and, thus, insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether any of her alleged injuries constituted a serious injury (see Grasso v Angerami, 79 NY2d 813, 814 [1991]; Lively v Fernandez, 85 AD3d at 982; D’Orsa v Bryan, 83 AD3d 646, 647 [2011]; Resek v Morreale, 74 AD3d 1043, 1044 [2010]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Kolodziej v. Savarese
The report the plaintiff submitted from her treating physician who examined her five days after the accident was unaffirmed, and, therefore, did not constitute competent medical evidence setting forth findings made contemporaneously with the accident (see Grasso v Angerami, 79 NY2d 813, 814-815 [1991]; Capriglione v Rivera, 83 AD3d 639, 640 [2011]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
D'Orsa v. Bryan
Garroway, as well as the plaintiff’s hospital records, magnetic resonance imaging reports, and EMG/ NCS reports, all were unaffirmed or uncertified, and thus, failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Grasso v Angerami, 79 NY2d 813, 814 [1991]; Rush v Kwan Chiu, 79 AD3d 1004, 1004 [2010]; Bernier v Torres, 79 AD3d 776, 776 [2010]; Zawaski v Salzano, 77 AD3d 823, 824 [2010]; Vasquez v John Doe #1, 73 AD3d 1033, 1033 [2010]; Lozusko v Miller, 72 AD3d 908, 908 [2010]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In re Delgatto
Realty Corp., 47 AD3d 901, 902 [2008]), his attorney’s affirmation (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 563 [1980]), uncertified medical and hospital records (see Lozusko v Miller, 72 AD3d 908, 908 [2010]; Bleszcz v Hiscock, 69 AD3d 890, 891 [2010]), and unsworn, unaffirmed reports of physicians (see Grasso v Angerami, 79 NY2d 813, 814 [1991]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Foley v. Liloia
The only medical report submitted by the plaintiff that was in admissible form was from her orthopedic surgeon, Dr. Jerry A. Lubliner (see Grasso v Angerami, 79 NY2d 813, 814 [1991]; Bernier v Torres, 79 AD3d 776, 777 [2010]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Brite v. Miller
The admissible evidence which the plaintiff presented in opposition to the defendant’s motion did not raise a triable issue of fact (see CPLR 3212 [b]; Grasso v Angerami, 79 NY2d 813, 814-815 [1991]; Vilomar v Castillo, 73 AD3d 758, 759 [2010]; Pagano v Kingsbury, 182 AD2d 268, 270 [1992]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ranford v. Tim's Tree & Lawn Service, Inc.
Initially, the medical reports of the plaintiffs treating .physician, submitted by the plaintiff, were unaffirmed and, thus, insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Grasso v Angerami, 79 NY2d 813, 814 [1991]; Mora v Riddick, 69 AD3d 591 [2010]; Patterson v NY Alarm Response Corp., 45 AD3d 656 [2007]; Nociforo v Penna, 42 AD3d 514, 515 [2007]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Giannini v. Cruz
Osheroff, the injured plaintiff’s treating physician, were affirmed, and the plaintiffs’ remaining submissions concerning the injured plaintiff were unsworn and insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Grasso v Angerami, 79 NY2d 813, 814-815 [1991]; Maffei v Santiago, 63 AD3d 1011, 1011-1012 [2009]; Niles v Lam Pakie Ho, 61 AD3d 657, 659 [2009]; Uribe-Zapata v Capallan, 54 AD3d 936, 937 [2008]; Patterson v NY Alarm Response Corp., 45 AD3d 656 [2007]; Verette v Zia, 44 AD3d 747, 748 [2007]; Nociforo v Penna, 42 AD3d 514, 515 [2007]; Pagano v Kingsbury, 182 AD2d 268, 271 [1992]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Vickers v. Francis
Initially, the X ray report dated September 22, 2006, the magnetic resonance imaging (hereinafter MRI) reports of Dr. Robert Diamond, the medical records from Alliance Medical Office, the plaintiffs emergency room and hospital records, and the reports of Dr. Nunzio Saulle dated August 31, 2006, and October 19, 2006, were not in admissible form because they were unsworn (see Grasso v Angerami, 79 NY2d 813, 814-815 [1991]; McNeil v New York City Tr.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Pompey v. Carney
The records and reports generated by Webstar Medical, PC., were without any probative value in opposing the defendant’s motion since they were neither affirmed nor sworn (see Grasso v Angerami, 79 NY2d 813, 814-815 [1991]; Uribe-Zapata v Capallan, 54 AD3d 936, 937 [2008]; Patterson v NY Alarm Response Corp., 45 AD3d 656 [2007]; Verette v Zia, 44 AD3d 747, 748 [2007]; Nociforo v Penna, 42 AD3d 514, 515 [2007]; Pagano v Kingsbury, 182 AD2d 268, 270 [1992]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Kotlyar v. Strogov
Under the circumstances, and given the speculative nature of much of the plaintiffs proof at the inquest (see Guerrero v Djuko Realty, 300 AD2d 542, 543 [2002]; Schwartzman v Friedler, 279 AD2d 517 [2001]), and the court’s error in admitting uncertified medical records into evidence (see CPLR 4518 [c]; 2106; Abbas v Cole, 7 AD3d 649, 649-650 [2004]; cf. Grasso v Angerami, 79 NY2d 813, 814-815 [1991]; Elder v Stokes, 35 AD3d 799 [2006]; Nkhereanye v Hillaire, 35 AD3d 419, 420 [2006]), we remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Bangs County, for a new inquest on the issue of damages.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Sapienza v. Ruggiero
Initially, the plaintiffs hospital records, the physical therapy evaluation of Justin Bonacci and the medical report of Dr. Samson Mebrahtu, were without any probative value in opposing the defendant’s motion because they were unsworn (see Grasso v Angerami, 79 NY2d 813, 814-815 [1991]; Uribe-Zapata v Capallan, 54 AD3d 936, 937 [2008]; Choi Ping Wong v Innocent, 54 AD3d 384, 385 [2008]; Patterson v NY Alarm Response Corp., 45 AD3d 656 [2007]; Verette v Zia, 44 AD3d 747, 748 [2007]; Nociforo v Penna, 42 AD3d 514, 515 [2007]; Pagano v Kingsbury, 182 AD2d 268, 270 [1992]; see also Mejia v DeRos…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Castrillon v. Oulabed
The plaintiffs’ submissions either did not constitute competent medical evidence in admissible form (see Grasso v Angerami, 79 NY2d 813, 814-815 [1991]; Pagano v Kingsbury, 182 AD2d 268, 270 [1992]), or otherwise failed to establish that the injured plaintiff sustained a serious injury under any statutory definition of the term (see Eldrainy v Hassain, 56 AD3d 419 [2008]; Krauer v Hines, 55 AD3d 881 [2008]; Deutsch v Tenempaguay, 48 AD3d 614, 615 [2008]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Seck v. Minigreen Hacking Corp.
The majority of the plaintiffs submissions made in opposition to the appellants’ motion, with the exception of the affidavit of his treating chiropractor and the affirmation of his treating radiologist, were either unaffirmed or unsworn, and thus without any probative value (see Grasso v Angerami, 79 NY2d 813, 814-815 [1991]; Patterson v NY Alarm Response Corp., 45 AD3d 656 [2007]; Verette v Zia, 44 AD3d 747, 748 [2007]; Nociforo v Penna, 42 AD3d 514, 515 [2007]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Matra v. Raza
The magnetic resonance imaging reports authored by Dr. Harold Tice concerning the plaintiff were not competent evidence since they were unaffirmed (see Grasso v Angerami, 79 NY2d 813, 814-815 [1991]; Patterson v NY Alarm Response Corp., 45 AD3d 656 [2007]; Verette v Zia, 44 AD3d 747 [2007]; Nociforo v Penna, 42 AD3d 514, 515 [2007]; Pagano v Kingsbury, 182 AD2d 268, 270 [1992]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Rabolt v. Park
Initially, the chiropractic and physical therapy reports relied upon by the plaintiff were not competent evidence since the chiropractic report was not sworn to before a notary and the physical therapy reports were not affirmed (see Grasso v Angerami, 79 NY2d 813, 814-815 [1991]; Patterson v NY Alarm Response Corp., 45 AD3d 656 [2007]; Verette v Zia, 44 AD3d 747, 748 [2007]; Nociforo v Penna, 42 AD3d 514 [2007]; see also Kunz v Gleeson, 9 AD3d 480, 481 [2004]; Santoro v Daniel, 276 AD2d 478 [2000]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Rodriguez v. Huerfano
The magnetic resonance imaging (hereinafter MRI) report regarding the plaintiffs lumbar region of the spine, upon which the plaintiffs treating chiropractor relied in opposing the motion, was without probative value, since it was not affirmed by the plaintiffs physician (see Grasso v Angerami, 79 NY2d 813, 814 [1991]), and was not actually relied upon by the defendants’ expert (see Zarate v McDonald, 31 AD3d 632, 633 [2006]; Ayzen v Melendez, 299 AD2d 381 [2002]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Duke v. Saurelis
The remaining submissions of the plaintiff were without probative value in opposing the motion since they were unsworn, unaffirmed, or uncertified (see Grasso v Angerami, 79 NY2d 813, 814-815 [1991]; Felix v New York City Tr.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Nannarone v. Ott
The remaining submission of the plaintiff, an X-ray report, was without probative value in opposing the motion since it was unsworn or unaffirmed (see Grasso v Angerami, 79 NY2d 813, 814-815 [1991]; Felix v New York City Tr.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Cotto v. JND Concrete & Brick, Inc.
The plaintiffs’ evidence was comprised, inter alia, of unsworn medical reports (see Grasso v Angerami, 79 NY2d 813, 814 [1991]; Pagano v Kingsbury, 182 AD2d 268, 270 [1992]), and the affirmation of the injured plaintiff’s physician, which incorporated by reference, among other things, certain reports dated October 10, 2005 and March 10, 2006.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Young Soo Lee v. Troia
The remaining submissions of the plaintiffs were without probative value in opposing the motion since they were unsworn/unaffirmed or uncertified (see Grasso v Angerami, 79 NY2d 813, 814-815 [1991]; Felix v New York City Tr.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Laguerre v. Chavarria
The remaining medical submissions of the plaintiff were without probative value in opposing the motion since they were neither sworn nor affirmed nor certified (see Grasso v Angerami, 79 NY2d 813, 814-815 [1991]; Felix v New York City Tr.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Espinosa v. Melendez
The remaining submissions of the plaintiff were without probative value in opposing the motion since they were unsworn, unaffirmed, or uncertified (see Grasso v Angerami, 79 NY2d 813, 814-815 [1991]; Felix v New York City Tr.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Irizarry v. Chen
The plaintiffs opposition consisted, inter alia, of unsworn medical reports and uncertified hospital records which were without probative value (see Grasso v Angerami, 79 NY2d 813, 814 [1991]; Mejia v DeRose, 35 AD3d 407, 408 [2006]; Hernandez v Taub, 19 AD3d 368 [2005]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Codrington v. Ahmad
The plaintiff’s remaining submissions were without probative value in opposing the motion since they were unsworn, unaffirmed, or uncertified (see Grasso v Angerami, 79 NY2d 813, 814-815 [1991]; Felix v New York City Tr.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Rodriguez v. Cesar
In addition, the report of his follow-up examination was unaffirmed and, therefore, without probative value (see Grasso v Angerami, 79 NY2d 813, 814 [1991]; Felix v New York City Tr.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
O'Connor v. Singh
The unsworn and unaffirmed report submitted by defendants’ examining neurologist was not in admissible form, an unexplained defect which requires its exclusion from consideration (see Grasso v Angerami, 79 NY2d 813, 814 [1991]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Phillips v. Zilinsky
The MRI reports of the plaintiffs cervical and lumbar spine dated October 25, 2004, were without probative value in opposing the appellant’s motion since they were unaffirmed (see Grasso v Angerami, 79 NY2d 813, 814 [1991]; Parente v Kang, 37 AD3d 687 [2007]; Nkhereanye v Hillaire, 35 AD3d 419, 420 [2006]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Osgood v. Martes
The MRI reports submitted by the plaintiffs were unaffirmed, and thus were without probative value in opposing the motion for summary judgment (see Grasso v Angerami, 79 NY2d 813, 814-815 [1991]; Hernandez v Taub, 19 AD3d 368 [2005]; Pagano v Kingsbury, 182 AD2d 268, 270 [1992]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Borgella v. D & L Taxi Corp.
The submissions of the plaintiff’s treating physician were without any probative value in opposing the defendants’ motion since they were unaffirmed (see Grasso v Anger ami, 79 NY2d 813, 814-815 [1991]; Elder v Stokes, 35 AD3d 799 [2006]; Felix v New York City Tr.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Iusmen v. Konopka
To the extent that the plaintiff relied on her hospital records and treatment reports of Long Island City Pain Management & Rehabilitation Offices, EC., those submissions were without any probative value in opposing the defendants’ motion since they were either uncertified (see Mejia v DeRose, 35 AD3d 407, 408 [2006]), or unaffirmed (see Grasso v Angerami, 79 NY2d 813, 814 [1991]; Bycinthe v Kombos, 29 AD3d 845, 845-846 [2006]; Pagano v Kingsbury, 182 AD2d 268, 270 [1992]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Marziotto v. StriAno
The remaining submission of the plaintiffs, which consisted of an unaffirmed magnetic resonance imaging report of the injured plaintiffs lumbosacral spine dated February 24, 2003, was also without probative value in opposing the cross motion since that submission was unaffirmed (see Grasso v Angerami, 79 NY2d 813, 814 [1991]; Bycinthe v Kombos, 29 AD3d 845 [2006]; Pagano v Kingsbury, 182 AD2d 268, 270 [1992]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Sully v. Kings Luxury, Inc.
In opposition to the defendants’ motion, the plaintiff submitted a physician’s report which was unaffirmed and thus, insufficient to raise an issue of fact (see Grasso v Angerami, 79 NY2d 813, 814 [1991]; Elder v Stokes, 35 AD3d 799 [2006]; Nkhereanye v Hillaire, 35 AD3d 419 [2006]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Vidor v. Davila
The remaining submissions of the plaintiffs were without probative value in opposing the motion since they were unsworn/ unaffirmed or uncertified (see Grasso v Angerami, 79 NY2d 813, 814-815 [1991]; Felix v New York City Tr.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Brobeck v. Jolloh
All of the remaining submissions of the plaintiff, with the exception of his own affidavit, were unaffirmed/unsworn and thus without probative value in opposing the defendant’s motion (see Grasso v Angerami, 79 NY2d 813, 814 [1991]; Hernandez v Taub, 19 AD3d 368, 368 [2005]; Pagano v Kingsbury, 182 AD2d 268, 270 [1992]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Curry v. D'Onofrio
Additionally, the Supreme Court improperly considered unsworn, nonprobative, and inadmissible evidence in determining the motions to dismiss (see Grasso v Angerami, 79 NY2d 813, 814-815 [1991]; Menzel v Plotnick, 202 AD2d 558, 558-559 [1994]; Matter of Firestone v Saxton Prods., 113 AD2d 750 [1985]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Xiaowen Feng v. New York City Transit
In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff Xiaowen Feng sustained a serious injury, since they failed to submit competent medical evidence in admissible form (see Grasso v Angerami, 79 NY2d 813, 814 [1991]; Fisher v Williams, 289 AD2d 288, 289 [2001]; see also Luckey v Bauch, 17 AD3d 411 [2005]; Kivlan v Acevedo, 17 AD3d 321, 322 [2005]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Hernandez v. Taub
The plaintiffs opposition consisted, inter alia, of computerized range of motion and sensory nerve conduction testing, únaffirmed medical reports which were without probative value (see Grasso v Angerami, 79 NY2d 813, 814 [1991]; Pagano v Kingsbury, 182 AD2d 268, 270 [1992]), and the affidavit of a chiropractor which failed to explain a 21/2-year gap in treatment (see Jimenez v Kambli, 272 AD2d 581, 582 [2000]; Smith v Askew, 264 AD2d 834 [1999]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Holder v. Brown
The unaffirmed medical reports were without any probative value (see Pagano v Kingsbury, 182 AD2d 268, 270 [1992]; Grasso v Angerami, 79 NY2d 813, 814 [1991]), and the affirmation of the treating physician merely parroted the statute without providing any objective medical evidence of a serious injury (see Carroll v Jennings, 264 AD2d 494 [1999]; Kauderer v Penta, 261 AD2d 365 [1999]; Powell v Hurdle, 214 AD2d 720 [1995]; Giannakis v Paschilidou, 212 AD2d 502 [1995]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
John N. Grasso
v.
Kelly M. Angerami
v.
Kelly M. Angerami
New York Court of Appeals.
Dec 23, 1991.
588 N.E.2d 76
1991 N.Y. LEXIS 5146
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Lawrence J. Zyra for appellant., Arete Kontogiannis for respondent.
Cited by 264 opinions | Published
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.
In opposition to defendant’s motion for summary judgment pursuant to Insurance Law § 5102 (d), plaintiff tendered proof of "serious injury” in inadmissible form, namely an unsworn doctor’s report. Inasmuch as plaintiff did not offer any excuse for his failure to provide the medical report in proper form, we need not consider whether proof of serious injury in[*815] inadmissible form is sufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Insurance Law § 5102 (d), if an acceptable excuse for the deficiency is offered.
Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone, Hancock, Jr., and Bellacosa concur.
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.