Abdulai v. Roy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Abdulai v. Roy

232 A.D.2d 229, 647 N.Y.S.2d 778, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10025

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

DecidedOctober 10, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 232 A.D.2d 229 (Abdulai v. Roy) 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

Abdulai v. Roy, 232 A.D.2d 229, 647 N.Y.S.2d 778, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10025 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Raymond Cornelius, J.), entered July 12, 1995, which, upon jury verdict, awarded plaintiff $110,000 for past and future pain and suffering, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The jury’s determination that plaintiff suffered a "significant disfigurement” (Insurance Law § 5102 [d]) should not be disturbed. The trial court properly concluded that plaintiff made out a prima facie case that the disfigurement of plaintiffs face was "significant”, i.e., that a reasonable person would view the physical alteration as " 'unattractive, objectionable, or * * * the subject of pity and scorn’ ” (Siegle v County of Fulton, 174 AD2d 930, 931, quoting Caruso v Hall, 101 AD2d 967, 968, affd 64 NY2d 843). Plaintiff’s doctor testified that a line-shaped scar under plaintiff’s right eye was "deeply discolored”, and that a one-third inch scar on his nose was somewhat "thickened”. The doctor stated that the scars had assumed their "permanent or definitive configuration” and concluded that "no treatment * * * could accomplish any significant improvement in the appearance of these two lesions”. Defendants characterize the scars as being only "minor cuts”. However, defendants make no showing that the jury could not have concluded, based on a fair interpretation of the evidence, that the scars are "unattractive” or "objectionable”. Thus, there is no basis to set aside the verdict (supra.).

Finally, the amount of damages does not deviate materially from what is reasonable compensation under the circumstances. Concur—Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Rubin and Kupferman, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Raymond Cornelius, J.), entered July 12, 1995, which, upon jury verdict, awarded plaintiff $110,000 for past and future pain and suffering, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The jury’s determination that plaintiff suffered a "significant disfigurement” (Insurance Law § 5102 [d]) should not be disturbed. The trial court properly concluded that plaintiff made out a prima facie case that the disfigurement of plaintiffs face was "significant”, i.e., that a reasonable person would view the physical alteration as " 'unattractive, objectionable, or * * * the subject of pity and scorn’ ” (Siegle v County of Fulton, 174 AD2d 930, 931, quoting Caruso v Hall, 101 AD2d 967, 968, affd 64 NY2d 843). Plaintiff’s doctor testified that a line-shaped scar under plaintiff’s right eye was "deeply discolored”, and that a one-third inch scar on his nose was somewhat "thickened”. The doctor stated that the scars had assumed their "permanent or definitive configuration” and concluded that "no treatment * * * could accomplish any significant improvement in the appearance of these two lesions”. Defendants characterize the scars as being only "minor cuts”. However, defendants make no showing that the jury could not have concluded, based on a fair interpretation of the evidence, that the scars are "unattractive” or "objectionable”. Thus, there is no basis to set aside the verdict (supra.).

Finally, the amount of damages does not deviate materially from what is reasonable compensation under the circumstances. Concur—Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Rubin and Kupferman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

232 A.D.2d 229, 647 N.Y.S.2d 778, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10025, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/abdulai-v-roy-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack