Schultz v. Von Voight

New York Court of Appeals

Schultz v. Von Voight

658 N.E.2d 1040, 86 N.Y.2d 865, 635 N.Y.S.2d 167, 1995 N.Y. LEXIS 3563

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 26, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by15 cases

This text of 658 N.E.2d 1040 (Schultz v. Von Voight) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Schultz v. Von Voight, 658 N.E.2d 1040, 86 N.Y.2d 865, 635 N.Y.S.2d 167, 1995 N.Y. LEXIS 3563 (N.Y. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

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

Defendant presented sufficient evidence to demonstrate plaintiff did not sustain serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a matter of law. Plaintiffs evidence proffered in opposition to defendant’s motion for summary judgment fails to establish a triable issue of fact concerning the permanency of the injuries alleged to constitute serious injury within the scope of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). Plaintiffs sole reliance upon allegations contained in his pleadings and bill of particulars to establish the permanent nature of his injuries is insufficient to defeat the prima facie showing made by defendant (see, Indig v Finkelstein, 23 NY2d 728, 729).

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine and Ciparick 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.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

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

Defendant presented sufficient evidence to demonstrate plaintiff did not sustain serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a matter of law. Plaintiffs evidence proffered in opposition to defendant’s motion for summary judgment fails to establish a triable issue of fact concerning the permanency of the injuries alleged to constitute serious injury within the scope of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). Plaintiffs sole reliance upon allegations contained in his pleadings and bill of particulars to establish the permanent nature of his injuries is insufficient to defeat the prima facie showing made by defendant (see, Indig v Finkelstein, 23 NY2d 728, 729).

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine and Ciparick 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

658 N.E.2d 1040, 86 N.Y.2d 865, 635 N.Y.S.2d 167, 1995 N.Y. LEXIS 3563, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schultz-v-von-voight-ny-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack