From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Spoth v. Clark

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Mar 10, 1989
148 A.D.2d 953 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)

Opinion

March 10, 1989

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Erie County, McGowan, J.

Present — Dillon, P.J., Callahan, Boomer, Green and Davis, JJ.


Order insofar as appealed from unanimously reversed on the law with costs and motion denied, in accordance with the following memorandum: Special Term erred in granting defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the second cause of action. On this record, whether Mr. Spoth's facial scar constitutes a significant disfigurement is a question of fact (see, Waldron v. Wild, 96 A.D.2d 190; see also, Rulison v. Zanella, 119 A.D.2d 957, 958; Savage v. Delacruz, 100 A.D.2d 707; Smith v. Mouawad, 91 A.D.2d 700). Defendant did not meet her initial burden of going forward with proof in admissible form to establish her entitlement to summary judgment (see, Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557). The record does not disclose any photographic or medical evidence of the extent or nature of the scar, nor is there any indication that the court viewed the scar.


Summaries of

Spoth v. Clark

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Mar 10, 1989
148 A.D.2d 953 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
Case details for

Spoth v. Clark

Case Details

Full title:JOHN C. SPOTH et al., Appellants, v. JANET V. CLARK, Respondent

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

Date published: Mar 10, 1989

Citations

148 A.D.2d 953 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
539 N.Y.S.2d 192

Citing Cases

Modesta v. Guy

Hilarion and Pierre, however, failed to address plaintiff's claim of "serious injury" under the significant…

Gibbs v. U.S.

The Court's calculation constitutes a fair and just compensation for all the injuries, pain and suffering…