CPLR R. 3212 Motion for summary judgment
CPLR R. 4518 Business records
CPLR R. 3116 Signing deposition; physical preparation; copies
(a) Signing.
Shafi v Motta, 2010 NY Slip Op 03895 (App. Div., 2nd, 2010)
On their motion for summary judgment, the defendants had the burden of
establishing, by proof in admissible form, their prima facie entitlement
to judgment as a matter of law (see CPLR 3212[b]; Zuckerman v
City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 561; Myers v Ferrara, 56 AD3d
78, 83). This burden may be satisfied only by the defendant's
affirmative demonstration of the merit of the defense, rather than
merely by reliance on gaps in the plaintiffs' case (see DeFalco v
BJ's Wholesale Club, Inc., 38 AD3d 824, 825; Cox v Huntington
Quadrangle No. 1 Co., 35 AD3d 523, 524; Pearson v Parkside Ltd.
Liab. Co., 27 AD3d 539; Mondello v DiStefano, 16 AD3d 637,
638). Here, the defendants submitted [*2]hospital
laboratory reports and records of the New York City Department of
Health and Mental Hygiene. As the Supreme Court concluded, however,
because these documents were neither certified nor authenticated, and
thus were not in admissible form, they could not be considered on the
motion (see CPLR 4518[c]; Banfield v New York City Tr. Auth.,
36 AD3d 732; Baez v Sugrue, 300 AD2d 519, 520; cf. Whitfield v
City of New York, 48 AD3d 798, 799). Moreover, the affirmation of
the defendants' attorney submitted with very brief excerpts of
deposition testimony was insufficient to establish the defendants'
entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Irving v Great Atl.
& Pac. Tea Co., 269 AD2d 358, 359; Cicolello v Limb, 216
AD2d 434). Inasmuch as the defendants failed to carry their burden,
denial of the motion was required without regard to the sufficiency of
the papers submitted in opposition (see Winegrad v New York Univ.
Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853; Molina v Belasquez, 1 AD3d 489).
Marmer
v IF USA Express, Inc., 2010 NY Slip Op 04151 (App. Div., 2nd, 2010)
The defendants did not meet their prima facie burden of showing that the
plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury as a result of the subject
accident. Specifically, the defendants failed to show that the plaintiff
did not sustain a medically-determined injury or impairment of a
nonpermanent nature which prevented her from performing substantially
all of the material acts which constituted her usual and customary daily
activities for a period of not less than 90 days during the 180-day
period immediately following the subject motor vehicle accident, as
articulated in Insurance Law § 5102(d) (hereinafter the 90/180-day
category) (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345; Gaddy
v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957). In the plaintiff's bill of
particulars, she clearly set forth that, as a result of the subject
motor vehicle accident, she sustained, inter alia, a serious injury
under the 90/180-day category of Insurance Law § 5102(d). The affirmed
reports of the defendants' examining physicians did not specifically
relate any of their findings to this 90/180-day category of serious
injury (see Negassi v Royle, 65 AD3d 1311; Ismail v Tejeda, 65
AD3d 518; Neuberger v Sidoruk, 60 AD3d 650; Miller v Bah, 58
AD3d 815; Scinto v Hoyte, 57 AD3d 646). Further, the unsigned
deposition transcript of the plaintiff, which the defendants submitted
in support of their motion, did not constitute admissible evidence in
light of the defendants' failure to demonstrate that the transcript was
forwarded to the plaintiff for her review pursuant to CPLR 3116(a) (see
Martinez v 123-16 Liberty Ave. Realty Corp., 47 AD3d 901; McDonald
v Mauss, 38 AD3d 727; Pina v Flik Intl. Corp., 25 AD3d 772; Santos
v Intown Assoc., 17 AD3d 564). Since the defendants [*2]failed to meet their prima facie burden, we
need not consider whether the plaintiff's opposition papers were
sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Negassi v Royle, 65
AD3d 1311; Ismail v Tejeda, 65 AD3d 518; Neuberger v Sidoruk,
60 AD3d 650; Miller v Bah, 58 AD3d 815).
The bold is mine.
bruteforcelawyer.com 