Ingram v. Town of Clarkson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ingram v. Town of Clarkson

219 A.D.2d 839, 632 N.Y.S.2d 38, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10898

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

DecidedSeptember 29, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 219 A.D.2d 839 (Ingram v. Town of Clarkson) 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

Ingram v. Town of Clarkson, 219 A.D.2d 839, 632 N.Y.S.2d 38, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10898 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously reversed on the law with costs, motion denied and complaint reinstated. Memorandum: Supreme Court improperly granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment. In opposition to the motion, plaintiffs submitted evidence that, as the result of the accident, Cynthia M. Ingram (plaintiff) suffers from chondromalacia of the left knee and that her condition restricts her ability to squat, kneel, walk and stand. That proof is sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact whether plaintiff sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see, Hulsen v Morrison, 206 AD2d 459; De Angelo v Fidel Corp. Servs., 171 AD2d 588; Akin v Estate of Patti, 149 AD2d 964; Mulhauser v Wood, 107 AD2d 1019, appeals dismissed 65 NY2d 637). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Calvaruso, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Green, J. P., Lawton, Callahan, Balio and Boehm, JJ.

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

Order unanimously reversed on the law with costs, motion denied and complaint reinstated. Memorandum: Supreme Court improperly granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment. In opposition to the motion, plaintiffs submitted evidence that, as the result of the accident, Cynthia M. Ingram (plaintiff) suffers from chondromalacia of the left knee and that her condition restricts her ability to squat, kneel, walk and stand. That proof is sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact whether plaintiff sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see, Hulsen v Morrison, 206 AD2d 459; De Angelo v Fidel Corp. Servs., 171 AD2d 588; Akin v Estate of Patti, 149 AD2d 964; Mulhauser v Wood, 107 AD2d 1019, appeals dismissed 65 NY2d 637). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Calvaruso, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Green, J. P., Lawton, Callahan, Balio and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

219 A.D.2d 839, 632 N.Y.S.2d 38, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10898, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ingram-v-town-of-clarkson-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack