Pikulski v. Laidlaw Transit, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pikulski v. Laidlaw Transit, Inc.

186 A.D.2d 1048

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 7, 1992·Published

Opinion

— Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Defendants’ motion for summary judgment was properly denied. The record presents triable issues of fact on the question whether plaintiff Paula Pikulski suffered a serious injury within the meaning of the No-Fault Law (see, Insurance Law § 5102 [d]). The conflicting opinions of the medical experts raise issues of credibility, which are for the jury to determine (see, Weider v Senebouthyrath, 182 AD2d 1124; Francis v Basic Metal, 144 AD2d 634, 635). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Cattaraugus County, Feeman, Jr., J. —Summary Judgment.) Present — Green, J. P., Lawton, Boehm, Fallon and Davis, JJ.

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

— Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Defendants’ motion for summary judgment was properly denied. The record presents triable issues of fact on the question whether plaintiff Paula Pikulski suffered a serious injury within the meaning of the No-Fault Law (see, Insurance Law § 5102 [d]). The conflicting opinions of the medical experts raise issues of credibility, which are for the jury to determine (see, Weider v Senebouthyrath, 182 AD2d 1124; Francis v Basic Metal, 144 AD2d 634, 635). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Cattaraugus County, Feeman, Jr., J. —Summary Judgment.) Present — Green, J. P., Lawton, Boehm, Fallon and Davis, JJ.

Pikulski v. Laidlaw Transit, Inc., 186 A.D.2d 1048 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

186 A.D.2d 1048 (Pikulski v. Laidlaw Transit, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related