Landsman v. Bunker

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Landsman v. Bunker

142 A.D.2d 986, 530 N.Y.S.2d 407, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15021

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided July 7, 1988·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Judgment unanimously reversed on the law with costs and new trial granted. Memorandum: Plaintiff Ruth Landsman was injured in an automobile accident and sustained a laceration of her lower lip and chin, resulting in a depressed PA-inch scar on her chin. The jury returned a verdict in favor of defendant, finding that plaintiff had not suffered a significant disfigurement within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). The standard by which significant disfigurement is to be determined within the meaning of that section is whether a reasonable person would view the condition as unattractive, objectionable, or as the subject of pity or scorn (Prieston v Massaro, 107 AD2d 742, 743; Waldron v Wild, 96 AD2d 190, 194). We find that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence, entitling plaintiff to a new trial (see, Cohen v Hallmark Cards, 45 NY2d 493, 499; Luppino v Busher, 97 AD2d 499). (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Wisner, J.—negligence.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Denman, Boomer, Pine and Balio, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously reversed on the law with costs and new trial granted. Memorandum: Plaintiff Ruth Landsman was injured in an automobile accident and sustained a laceration of her lower lip and chin, resulting in a depressed PA-inch scar on her chin. The jury returned a verdict in favor of defendant, finding that plaintiff had not suffered a significant disfigurement within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). The standard by which significant disfigurement is to be determined within the meaning of that section is whether a reasonable person would view the condition as unattractive, objectionable, or as the subject of pity or scorn (Prieston v Massaro, 107 AD2d 742, 743; Waldron v Wild, 96 AD2d 190, 194). We find that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence, entitling plaintiff to a new trial (see, Cohen v Hallmark Cards, 45 NY2d 493, 499; Luppino v Busher, 97 AD2d 499). (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Wisner, J.—negligence.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Denman, Boomer, Pine and Balio, JJ.

Landsman v. Bunker, 142 A.D.2d 986, 530 N.Y.S.2d 407, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15021 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

142 A.D.2d 986 (Landsman v. Bunker) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related