Franchini v. Palmieri

N.Y.

Court: New York Court of Appeals

Citations: 1 N.Y.3d 536, 775 N.Y.S.2d 232, 807 N.E.2d 282, 2003 N.Y. LEXIS 3982

Decision Date: 11/25/2003

Jurisdiction: NY

Bluebook Citation: Franchini v. Palmieri, 1 N.Y.3d 536, 775 N.Y.S.2d 232, 807 N.E.2d 282, 2003 N.Y. LEXIS 3982 (2003)

More Cases: N.Y. decisions from 2003


Citation analytics

How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.

Highly CitedTop 2% most-cited · cited by 117 decisions
117
Citing decisions
3
Authorities cited
6+
Courts citing

Citations by decade

61
34
22
2000s2010s2020s

Courts citing this case

N.Y. App. Div.100
N.Y. Sup. Kings9
N.Y. Sup. Ct.3
E.D.N.Y1
E.D.N.Y.1
N.Y.1
Most recently cited by10
  • 2026Rivera v. Devdariani N.Y. Sup. Kings
  • 2025Nahshal v. Chait N.Y. Sup. Kings
  • 2025Gramajo v. Fox Ride Inc. N.Y. Sup. Kings
  • 2025Cherfilus v. McAlmon N.Y. Sup. Kings
  • 2025Philippe v. Islam N.Y. Sup. Kings
  • 2025Berthold v. Williams N.Y. Sup. Kings
  • 2025Brown v. Saczawa N.Y. Sup. Kings
  • 2025Saez v. Lyka Taxi Inc. N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty.
  • 2024Williams v. Dia N.Y. Sup. Ct., Bronx Cty.
  • 2024Anderson v. Iltcheva N.Y. Sup. Kings
Cites 3 cases

Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.


Opinion

Roseanne Franchini et al., Appellants, v Suzanne Palmieri, Respondent.

Attorneys

  • APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
  • DeLorenzo Law Firm, LLP, Schenectady (Thomas E. DeLorenzo of counsel), for appellants.
  • Thuillez, Ford, Gold, Johnson & Butler, LLP, Albany (Debra J. Young of counsel), for respondent.
majority

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

In this negligence action to recover for injuries allegedly sustained in a motor vehicle accident, defendant properly relied on medical records and reports prepared by plaintiff s treating physicians to establish that plaintiff did not suffer a serious injury causally related to the accident. Defendant having established prima facie entitlement to summary judgment, the burden shifted to plaintiff to offer proof in admissible form sufficient to create a material issue of fact necessitating a trial (see Giuffrida v Citibank Corp., 100 NY2d 72, 81 [2003]). Plaintiffs submissions were insufficient to defeat summary judgment because her experts failed to adequately address plaintiff’s preexisting back condition and other medical problems, and did not provide any foundation or objective medical basis supporting the conclusions they reached (see Romano v Stanley, 90 NY2d 444, 451-452 [1997]; see also Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345, 357-358 [2002]).

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges G.B. Smith, Ciparick, Rosenblatt, Graffeo and Read concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

Chat with this case using AI

Ask CiteLaw's AI Navigator anything about this case, check whether it is still good law, and see every case that cites it. Sign up for CiteLaw free today to get started.