From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Pazda v. Memminger's Painting, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Dec 27, 2000
278 A.D.2d 830 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

December 27, 2000.

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.


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 N.Y.2d 230, 236; see, Insurance Law § 5102 [d]; Horan v. Mirando, 221 A.D.2d 506, 507). In response, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact ( see, Gaddy v. Eyler, 79 N.Y.2d 955, 956).


Summaries of

Pazda v. Memminger's Painting, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Dec 27, 2000
278 A.D.2d 830 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

Pazda v. Memminger's Painting, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:NORBERT PAZDA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. MEMMINGER'S PAINTING, INC., THOMAS…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Dec 27, 2000

Citations

278 A.D.2d 830 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
720 N.Y.S.2d 418