Flihan v. Mutch

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Flihan v. Mutch

179 A.D.2d 1008

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

DecidedJanuary 31, 1992

StatusPublished

This text of 179 A.D.2d 1008 (Flihan v. Mutch) 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

Flihan v. Mutch, 179 A.D.2d 1008 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment. We conclude from our review of the record that there is sufficient evidence to raise a triable issue of fact whether plaintiff June Flihan suffered a "serious injury” within the meaning of the No-Fault Law (see, Francis v Basic Metal, 144 AD2d 634, 635). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Oneida County, Shaheen, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Green and Lawton, JJ.

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

Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment. We conclude from our review of the record that there is sufficient evidence to raise a triable issue of fact whether plaintiff June Flihan suffered a "serious injury” within the meaning of the No-Fault Law (see, Francis v Basic Metal, 144 AD2d 634, 635). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Oneida County, Shaheen, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Green and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

179 A.D.2d 1008, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/flihan-v-mutch-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack