In Fitzpatrick v. Chase Manhattan Bank 285 A.D.2d 487 (2nd Dept. 2001), the Court granted movant's motion seeking summary judgment on the third-party complaint because, after third-party defendant had established the absence of a grave" injury, third-party plaintiff failed to show that the plaintiff had a "grave" injury as defined by the statute. The Court held that "the third-party defendant met its burden of proving, by competent admissible evidence, that the plaintiff's injuries, although clearly serious, did not rise to the level of 'grave' injuries, within the meaning of Workers' Compensation Law 11." (Id. at 487.) In granting the motion the Court further stated that "in opposition to the motion the appellant Biordi...failed to demonstrate the existence of genuine issues of fact." (Id. at 488.)