Thrall v. City of Syracuse
| Decision Date | 29 November 1983 |
| Citation | Thrall v. City of Syracuse, 60 N.Y.2d 950, 471 N.Y.S.2d 51, 459 N.E.2d 160 (N.Y. 1983) |
| Parties | , 459 N.E.2d 160 James C. THRALL, Jr., Respondent, v. CITY OF SYRACUSE et al., Appellants. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
David M. Garber, Corp. Counsel, Syracuse (Robert J. Jenkins, Syracuse, of counsel), for appellants.
G. Robert McAllister, Syracuse, for respondent.
OPINION OF THE COURT
On review of submissions pursuant to Rule 500.2(b) (22 NYCRR 500.2[g] ), order reversed, with costs, and complaint dismissed for reasons stated in the dissenting memorandum of Justice Reid S. Moule at the Appellate Division (96 A.D.2d at 715-716, 464 N.Y.S.2d 1022; see also Licari v. Elliott, 57 N.Y.2d 230, 237, 455 N.Y.S.2d 570, 441 N.E.2d 1088).
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
32 cases
-
Williams v. Ritchie
...disrupt overall functioning does not qualify as significant limitation of use of a body function or system. Thrall v. Syracuse, 60 N.Y.2d 950, 471 N.Y.S.2d 51, 459 N.E.2d 160 (1983) (citing with approval the dissenting opinion in 96 A.D.2d 715, 464 N.Y.S.2d 1022 (finding no "significant lim......
-
Thompson v. Bronx Merch. Funding Servs., LLC
...678, 518 N.Y.S.2d 788 (1987); Thrall v. City of Syracuse, 96 A.D.2d 715, 464 N.Y.S.2d 1022, rev'd on dissenting opn. below, 60 N.Y.2d 950, 471 N.Y.S.2d 51, rearg. denied 61 N.Y.2d 905, 474 N.Y.S.2d 1027. Although plaintiff initially treated for her injuries, plaintiff has not presented any ......
-
Bishop v. Estevez
...of serious injury (Licari v Elliot, 57 N.Y.2d 230, 236, 239; see, Thrall v City of Syracuse, 96 A.D.2d 715, revd on dissenting opn below 60 N.Y.2d 950, rearg denied 61 905)" (Scheer v Koubek, 70 N.Y.2d 678 [1987]). She stopped treating "because I reached maximum medical improvement" (¶ 8), ......
-
Warner v. Adao
... ... province of the court (Hambsch v New York City Transit ... Authority, 101 A.D.2d 807 [2d Dept 1987]). Insurance Law ... §5102 is the ... "serious injury" under the state (Thrall v City ... of Syracuse, 60 N.Y.2d 950, revg 96 A.D.2d 715; ... Partlow v Meehan, 155 ... ...
Get Started for Free