Loiseau v. Maxwell

256 A.D.2d 450, 682 N.Y.S.2d 74, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13509
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 16, 1998
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 256 A.D.2d 450 (Loiseau v. Maxwell) 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
Loiseau v. Maxwell, 256 A.D.2d 450, 682 N.Y.S.2d 74, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13509 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Davis, J.), dated November 20, 1997, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff Kenneth Loiseau did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d); and (2) a judgment of the same court dated December 17, 1997, dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the appeal from the order is dismissed; and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondents are awarded one bill of costs.

The appeal from the intermediate order must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of judgment in the action (see, Matter of Aho, 39 NY2d 241, 248). The issues raised on appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment (see, CPLR 5501 [a] [1]).

It is undisputed that the infant plaintiff suffered a scar five centimeters in length and one centimeter in width on the lower part of his right leg. In opposition to the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, the plaintiffs 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 plaintiffs’ arguments, a reasonable person viewing the infant plaintiffs leg in its altered state would not regard the condition as unattractive, objectionable, or as the subject of pity or scorn (see, Edwards v DeHaven, 155 AD2d 757). Accordingly, the defendants’ motion was properly granted. Rosenblatt, J. P., Sullivan, Joy, Altman and Luciano, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Ott v. Gonzalez
W.D. New York, 2022
Caseres v. Verma
2019 NY Slip Op 8650 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Heywood v. New York City Tr. Auth.
2018 NY Slip Op 6318 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
SANCHEZ, JESSICA v. DAWSON, MARY E.
120 A.D.3d 933 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
HELLER, TABITHA v. JANSMA, PETER
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013
Heller v. Jansma
103 A.D.3d 1160 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Maldonado v. Piccirilli
70 A.D.3d 785 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Lynch v. Iqbal
56 A.D.2d 621 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Sirmans v. Mannah
300 A.D.2d 465 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Murry v. Witherel
287 A.D.2d 926 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Hasham v. Clarke
274 A.D.2d 556 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Colinares v. Washington
269 A.D.2d 350 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Lisa v. Pastor
262 A.D.2d 368 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
256 A.D.2d 450, 682 N.Y.S.2d 74, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13509, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/loiseau-v-maxwell-nyappdiv-1998.