Gaddy v. Eyler
- Decided
- April 2, 1992
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- New York
Cited 2,888 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment where plaintiffs minor limitation of movement in neck and back are insignificant within the meaning of the no-fault statute — Williams v. Ritchie (2001)
- evaluating a plaintiff’s evidence under both the “permanent consequential limitation” and “significant limitation” prongs simultaneously — Lifchits v. Key 4U Transporation Corp. Bus (2024)
- evaluating a plaintiff’s evidence under both the “permanent consequential limitation” and “significant limitation” prongs simultaneously — Flores v. Bergtraum (2022)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
OPINION OF THE COURT Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.
Plaintiff was involved in a motor vehicle accident in June 1987 when, while stopped for a red light, her vehicle was struck from behind. She instituted this action to recover damages for the resulting personal injuries.
Cite this
Gaddy v. Eyler, 79 N.Y.2d 955 (1992)Read the full opinion
Free account needed
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.