Grasso v. Angerami

N.Y.

Court: New York Court of Appeals

Citations: 79 N.Y.2d 813, 580 N.Y.S.2d 178, 588 N.E.2d 76, 1991 N.Y. LEXIS 5146

Decision Date: 12/23/1991

Jurisdiction: NY

Bluebook Citation: Grasso v. Angerami, 79 N.Y.2d 813, 580 N.Y.S.2d 178, 588 N.E.2d 76, 1991 N.Y. LEXIS 5146 (1991)

More Cases: N.Y. decisions from 1991


Citation analytics

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

Landmark AuthorityTop 1% most-cited · cited by 250 decisions
250
Citing decisions
6+
Courts citing

Citations by decade

53
134
45
18
1990s2000s2010s2020s

Courts citing this case

N.Y. App. Div.225
N.Y. Sup. Kings9
N.Y. Sup. Ct.5
N.Y.2
N.Y. App. Term2
N.Y. App. Term.2
Most recently cited by10
  • 2026Rivera v. Devdariani N.Y. Sup. Kings
  • 2025Milek v. DPM Contr. Servs., Inc. N.Y. Sup. Ct., Richmond Cty.
  • 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.
  • 2024Shepherd v. Barry N.Y. Sup. Queens

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


Opinion

John N. Grasso, Appellant, v Kelly M. Angerami, Respondent.

Attorneys

  • APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
  • Lawrence J. Zyra for appellant.
  • Arete Kontogiannis for respondent.
majority

Memorandum.

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

In opposition to defendant’s motion for summary judgment pursuant to Insurance Law § 5102 (d), plaintiff tendered proof of "serious injury” in inadmissible form, namely an unsworn doctor’s report. Inasmuch as plaintiff did not offer any excuse for his failure to provide the medical report in proper form, we need not consider whether proof of serious injury in inadmissible form is sufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Insurance Law § 5102 (d), if an acceptable excuse for the deficiency is offered.

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone, Hancock, Jr., and Bellacosa 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.