From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Pikulski v. Laidlaw Transit, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Oct 7, 1992
186 A.D.2d 1048 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Opinion

October 7, 1992

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Cattaraugus County, Feeman, Jr., J.

Present — Green, J.P., Lawton, Boehm, Fallon and Davis, JJ.


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 A.D.2d 1124; Francis v Basic Metal, 144 A.D.2d 634, 635).


Summaries of

Pikulski v. Laidlaw Transit, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Oct 7, 1992
186 A.D.2d 1048 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
Case details for

Pikulski v. Laidlaw Transit, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:RAYMOND L. PIKULSKI et al., Respondents, v. LAIDLAW TRANSIT, INC., et al.…

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

Date published: Oct 7, 1992

Citations

186 A.D.2d 1048 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)