From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

McNeil v. Crutchley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 11, 1998
250 A.D.2d 655 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

May 11, 1998

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


Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed in its entirety.

The affirmed reports of Frank M. Hudak, M.D., and Alexander B. Rimalovski, M.D., which the defendant submitted in support of his motion for summary judgment, made out a prima facie case that the plaintiff Marvin McNeil did not sustain a serious injury as defined by Insurance Law § 5102 (d). The affirmation of Richard Lee, a chiropractor, which was submitted in opposition to the motion, did not constitute competent evidence ( see, CPLR 2106; Feintuch v. Grella, 209 A.D.2d 377) and thus did not overcome the defendant's showing.

Bracken, J.P., Copertino, Santucci, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

McNeil v. Crutchley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 11, 1998
250 A.D.2d 655 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

McNeil v. Crutchley

Case Details

Full title:MARVIN McNEIL, JR., an Infant, by his Mother and Natural Guardian, MICHELE…

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

Date published: May 11, 1998

Citations

250 A.D.2d 655 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
671 N.Y.S.2d 692

Citing Cases

Zafir v. Turbo Trans Corp.

First, the affirmation of the chiropractor does not constitute competent evidence on this issue; affirmations…

Zafir v. Turbo Trans Corp.

First, the affirmation of the chiropractor does not constitute competent evidence on this issue; affirmations…