From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Michaelides v. Martone

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 5, 1992
186 A.D.2d 544 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Opinion

October 5, 1992

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Brucia, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, or for summary judgment. In support of their motion the defendants submitted, inter alia, the unsworn medical report of their examining physician. In opposition, the plaintiff offered, inter alia, his own affidavit as well as the affidavit of his treating orthopedist.

Initially, we note that although the complaint was dismissed for failure to state a cause of action, since the defendants alternatively moved for summary judgment relief, it is, as stated in the Supreme Court, "appropriate to consider whether the plaintiff has a cause of action rather than whether he has stated one" (see, Rovello v Orofino Realty Co., 40 N.Y.2d 633; see also, Zack Metal Co. v International Nav. Corp., 67 N.Y.2d 892).

With regard to the plaintiff's allegation of "serious injury", the only proof thereof which was submitted in admissible form was the affidavit of the plaintiff's own doctor (see, Grasso v Angerami, 79 N.Y.2d 813; see also, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557). However, this affidavit is conclusory in nature and does not state that the plaintiff suffers from any limitation of movement, and is thus insufficient to sustain a finding of serious injury (see, De Filippo v White, 101 A.D.2d 801; Padron v Hood, 124 A.D.2d 718; Covington v Cinnirella, 146 A.D.2d 565).

Therefore, although the defendants did not submit medical proof in admissible form, the complaint was properly dismissed since "`the lack of merit to plaintiff's serious injury claim is patent' from the medical evidence submitted by plaintiff [himself]" (Covington v Cinnirella, 146 A.D.2d 565, 566, supra, quoting Popp v Kremer, 124 A.D.2d 720, 722; see also, Pagano v Kingsbury, 182 A.D.2d 268; Padron v Hood, 124 A.D.2d 718, supra).

We have considered the plaintiff's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Mangano, P.J., Harwood, Miller and Santucci, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Michaelides v. Martone

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 5, 1992
186 A.D.2d 544 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
Case details for

Michaelides v. Martone

Case Details

Full title:JOHN MICHAELIDES, Appellant, v. GERARD M. MARTONE et al., Respondents

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

Date published: Oct 5, 1992

Citations

186 A.D.2d 544 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
588 N.Y.S.2d 366

Citing Cases

Zodan v. Tucker

Moreover, even pled categories of serious injury may be disproved by means other than the submission of…

Zodan v. Tucker

Moreover, even pled categories of serious injury may be disproved by means other than the submission of…