Almonacid v. Meltzer
Cases that cite this one
11 later published cases cite this decision.
- Dzhumabaeva v. Dichy (New York Supreme Court, Kings County 2025)
- Petropoulos v. New York City Transit Authority (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
- LoPresti v. McNiff (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)
- Marotta v. Mastroianni (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)
- Shapiro v. Westbrook (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)
- Borino v. Little (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)
- Safolan v. Glassberg (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)
- Pippis v. Tong (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)
- Wadi v. Tepedino (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1997)
- Vignola v. Varrichio (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1997)
- Lincoln v. Johnson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1996)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
—In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (O’Brien, J.), dated September 19, 1994, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
Once the defendants submitted evidence establishing that the plaintiff did not suffer a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d), the burden shifted to the plaintiff to produce evidentiary proof in admissible form demonstrating the existence of a triable issue of fact (Jacondino v Lovis, 186 AD2d 109, 110; see, Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957; Tatti v Cummings, 193 AD2d 596). The affidavit of the plaintiff’s treating chiropractor consisted of conclusory assertions tailored to meet statutory requirements (see, Lopez v Senatore, 65 NY2d 1017,1019) and was, thus, insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (Marshall v Albano, 182 AD2d 614). Similarly, the plaintiff’s affidavit consisted of merely subjective complaints of pain and was also insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see, Iaria v Romero, 194 AD2d 769). O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.