Forster v. Novic

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Forster v. Novic

127 A.D.3d 605, 5 N.Y.S.3d 869

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 23, 2015·No. 14914 303301/12·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lucindo Suarez, J.), entered on or about December 2, 2013, which granted defendants’ motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them on the issue of serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants established prima facie that plaintiff did not sustain “significant disfigurement” (Insurance Law § 5102 [d]) as a result of the motor vehicle accident. Their plastic surgeon described the scar on plaintiffs forehead as “well healed” and “barely perceptible,” and their neurologist noted that the scar was “hardly visible”; a photograph taken by the plastic surgeon bears out these descriptions (see Christopher V. v James A. Leasing, Inc., 115 AD3d 462 [1st Dept 2014]; Sidibe v Cordero, 79 AD3d 536 [1st Dept 2010]). In opposition, plaintiff failed to submit a recent photograph of the scar to rebut defendants’ showing (see Aguilar v Hicks, 9 AD3d 318 [1st Dept 2004]).

Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Andrias, Manzanet-Daniels and Clark, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lucindo Suarez, J.), entered on or about December 2, 2013, which granted defendants’ motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them on the issue of serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants established prima facie that plaintiff did not sustain “significant disfigurement” (Insurance Law § 5102 [d]) as a result of the motor vehicle accident. Their plastic surgeon described the scar on plaintiffs forehead as “well healed” and “barely perceptible,” and their neurologist noted that the scar was “hardly visible”; a photograph taken by the plastic surgeon bears out these descriptions (see Christopher V. v James A. Leasing, Inc., 115 AD3d 462 [1st Dept 2014]; Sidibe v Cordero, 79 AD3d 536 [1st Dept 2010]). In opposition, plaintiff failed to submit a recent photograph of the scar to rebut defendants’ showing (see Aguilar v Hicks, 9 AD3d 318 [1st Dept 2004]).

Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Andrias, Manzanet-Daniels and Clark, JJ.

Forster v. Novic, 127 A.D.3d 605, 5 N.Y.S.3d 869 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

127 A.D.3d 605 (Forster v. Novic) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related