From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Barrette v. General Electric Company

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Nov 15, 1988
144 A.D.2d 983 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)

Opinion

November 15, 1988

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Stone, J.

Present — Dillon, P.J., Callahan, Doerr, Denman and Boomer, JJ.


Judgment unanimously reversed on the law and motion denied, with one bill of costs to be apportioned equally among the respondents in this appeal and in appeals Nos. 2, 3 and 4, decided herewith. Memorandum: The injured plaintiff sued for damages allegedly sustained as a result of exposure to certain materials at his workplace. Defendants moved for summary judgment relying upon the unsworn report of plaintiff's physician stating that upon examination plaintiff showed no evidence of pulmonary or cardiac disease. Special Term granted defendants' motions to dismiss stating that "defendants have established as a matter of law, that plaintiff has suffered no damages causally related to tungsten carbide exposure at his place of employment."

It is well established that a defendant moving for summary judgment has the burden of proving by evidence in admissible form that plaintiff has no cause of action (GTF Mktg. v. Colonial Aluminum Sales, 66 N.Y.2d 965). Because the report of plaintiff's physician was unsworn, it was not in admissible form (see, Sole v. Kurnik, 119 A.D.2d 974, lv dismissed 68 N.Y.2d 806; Savage v Delacruz, 100 A.D.2d 707; La Frenire v. Capital Dist. Transp. Auth., 96 A.D.2d 664) unless it had been adopted by plaintiff for his own purposes (see, Miller v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 100 A.D.2d 727, 728). On oral argument defendants stated that the plaintiff, in answer to his interrogatories, had adopted the report. The interrogatories referred to, however, are not to be found in the record and may not, therefore, be considered by us.

Moreover, even if admissible, the report of plaintiff's physician does not conclusively prove that plaintiff has suffered no injury as the result of exposure to substances at his work-place; it proves only that plaintiff has suffered no pulmonary or cardiac injury. Defendants have not ruled out other injuries that plaintiff may have suffered as the result of such exposure.


Summaries of

Barrette v. General Electric Company

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Nov 15, 1988
144 A.D.2d 983 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)
Case details for

Barrette v. General Electric Company

Case Details

Full title:JOHN C. BARRETTE et al., Appellants, v. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY et al.…

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

Date published: Nov 15, 1988

Citations

144 A.D.2d 983 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)

Citing Cases

Barrette v. Afrimet-Indussa, Inc.

Present — Dillon, P.J., Callahan, Doerr, Denman and Boomer, JJ. Judgment unanimously reversed on the law and…

Town of Huntington v. Braun

in admissible form sufficient to establish or raise the existence of material issues of fact which would…