From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hurst v. Hilgenfeldt

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 25, 1993
189 A.D.2d 855 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)

Opinion

January 25, 1993

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Orange County (Green, J.).


Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion for renewal is denied, the order dated April 4, 1990, and the judgment dated May 1, 1990, entered thereon are reinstated, and the complaint is dismissed.

The instant action arose from an accident which occurred in September 1987. After issue was joined, the defendant moved for summary judgment, contending that the plaintiff did not sustain a "serious injury" within the purview of Insurance Law § 5102. Upon due consideration of the medical evidence submitted in support of, and in opposition to, the motion, the court, by order dated April 4, 1990, properly granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant (see, Licari v. Elliott, 57 N.Y.2d 230).

The plaintiff subsequently moved for renewal of her opposition to the defendant's original motion. Her motion was based on an unsworn medical report dated May 25, 1990. The court granted renewal, vacated its prior order, and denied summary judgment. We now reverse and reinstate the prior order.

Under the circumstances existing at bar, we conclude that the plaintiff inexcusably failed to lay bare her proof in opposition to the original motion, and failed to show a valid reason for granting leave to renew. No explanation was offered as to why this, or a similar medical report, could not have been prepared earlier, as there is no allegation, much less proof, that the plaintiff's medical condition deteriorated after the original motion for summary judgment was made (see, Egan v. Greene, 154 A.D.2d 574, 575; Gendjoian v. Heaps, 186 A.D.2d 534).

Although the defendant did not object to the fact that the medical report submitted by the plaintiff in support of renewal was unsworn, we observe that it was not in admissible form and would not have been sufficient to defeat the defendant's motion for summary judgment (see, Grasso v. Angerami, 79 N.Y.2d 813; Pagano v. Kingsbury, 182 A.D.2d 268). Sullivan, J.P., Miller, Ritter and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Hurst v. Hilgenfeldt

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 25, 1993
189 A.D.2d 855 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
Case details for

Hurst v. Hilgenfeldt

Case Details

Full title:CELESTE M. HURST, Respondent, v. DEBORAH A. HILGENFELDT, Appellant

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

Date published: Jan 25, 1993

Citations

189 A.D.2d 855 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)

Citing Cases

Star v. Badillo

The evidence submitted by the defendants was sufficient to establish that the plaintiff did not suffer…

Scavenger, Inc. v. GT Interactive Software Corp.

In this connection, plaintiff's claim, based on the letter in January of 1997, that its performance under the…