From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sirmans v. Mannah

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 16, 2002
300 A.D.2d 465 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Summary

holding that a scar measuring seven-eighths of an inch on plaintiff's lip was not a "serious injury"

Summary of this case from Alvarez v. E. Penn Mfg. Co.

Opinion

2001-10607

Submitted November 13, 2002.

December 16, 2002.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants Chris C. Mannah and Lobby Cab Corp. appeal, and the defendant Ronald E. Keeling separately appeals, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schneier, J.), dated November 1, 2001, as denied their respective motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d).

Silverson, Pareres Lombardi, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Nancy I. Maltin of counsel), for appellants Chris C. Mannah and Lobby Cab Corp.

Cullen and Dykman, LLP, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Camille D. Barnett of counsel), for appellant Ronald E. Keeling.

Katz Kreinces, LLP, Garden City, N.Y. (Lawrence K. Katz of counsel), for respondent.

Before: MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, J.P., SONDRA MILLER, LEO F. McGINITY, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, REINALDO E. RIVERA, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with one bill of costs to the appellants appearing separately and filing separate briefs, the motions are granted, the complaint is dismissed insofar as asserted against the appellants, and the action against the remaining defendants is severed.

It is undisputed that the plaintiff sustained a scar 7/8 of an inch in length on her lower lip. In opposition to the appellants' prime facie establishment of their entitlement to summary judgment, the plaintiff alleged that the scar constituted a "significant disfigurement" and, therefore, was a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d). However, contrary to the plaintiff's contentions, a reasonable person viewing the plaintiff's lower lip in its altered state would not regard the condition as unattractive, objectionable, or as the object of pity and scorn (see Loiseau v. Maxwell, 256 A.D.2d 450; Edwards v. DeHaven, 155 A.D.2d 757). Thus, the appellants' respective motions should have been granted.

ALTMAN, J.P., S. MILLER, McGINITY, SCHMIDT and RIVERA, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Sirmans v. Mannah

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 16, 2002
300 A.D.2d 465 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

holding that a scar measuring seven-eighths of an inch on plaintiff's lip was not a "serious injury"

Summary of this case from Alvarez v. E. Penn Mfg. Co.
Case details for

Sirmans v. Mannah

Case Details

Full title:ELAINE SIRMANS, respondent, v. CHRIS C. MANNAH, ET AL., appellants, et…

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

Date published: Dec 16, 2002

Citations

300 A.D.2d 465 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
752 N.Y.S.2d 359

Citing Cases

Degen v. Lopez

To prove significant physical limitation, a plaintiff must present either objective quantitative evidence of…

Torres v. Lica Mae Taxi, Inc.

It is well settled that a scar may be deemed a significant disfigurement, and therefore a "serious injury"…