Pazda v. Memminger's Painting, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pazda v. Memminger's Painting, Inc.

278 A.D.2d 830, 720 N.Y.S.2d 418, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13531

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedDecember 27, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 278 A.D.2d 830 (Pazda v. Memminger's Painting, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Pazda v. Memminger's Painting, Inc., 278 A.D.2d 830, 720 N.Y.S.2d 418, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13531 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment and order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted the motions of defendants for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint. Contrary to the contention of plaintiff, defendants established that plaintiff was not “curtailed from performing his usual activities to a great extent rather than some slight curtailment” for 90 days during the 180 days immediately following the accident (Licari v Elliott, 57 NY2d 230, 236; see, Insurance Law § 5102 [d]; Horan v Mirando, 221 AD2d 506, 507). In response, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see, Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956). (Appeal from Judgment and Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Sconiers, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present— Pigott, Jr., P. J., Pine, Wisner, Scudder and Lawton, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Judgment and order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted the motions of defendants for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint. Contrary to the contention of plaintiff, defendants established that plaintiff was not “curtailed from performing his usual activities to a great extent rather than some slight curtailment” for 90 days during the 180 days immediately following the accident (Licari v Elliott, 57 NY2d 230, 236; see, Insurance Law § 5102 [d]; Horan v Mirando, 221 AD2d 506, 507). In response, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see, Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956). (Appeal from Judgment and Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Sconiers, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present— Pigott, Jr., P. J., Pine, Wisner, Scudder and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

278 A.D.2d 830, 720 N.Y.S.2d 418, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13531, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pazda-v-memmingers-painting-inc-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack