Mancusi v. Miller Brewing Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mancusi v. Miller Brewing Co.

251 A.D.2d 265, 675 N.Y.S.2d 56, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7799

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

DecidedJune 30, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 251 A.D.2d 265 (Mancusi v. Miller Brewing Co.) 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

Mancusi v. Miller Brewing Co., 251 A.D.2d 265, 675 N.Y.S.2d 56, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7799 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (John Parker, J.), entered May 29, 1997, which, after a jury trial, inter alia, awarded plaintiff damages in the amount of $200,000 for past pain and suffering, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff was a passenger in a medallion taxi cab operated by defendant Nelson and owned by defendant Pithio that collided with a vehicle owned by defendant Miller Brewing Co. and operated by defendant Boneker. Plaintiff’s face was thrown [266]*266against the plexiglass partition separating the front and rear seats, causing lacerations to her face and to the inside of her mouth, minor paresthesia affecting a portion of her chin and lower lip, trauma to seven lower teeth and internal derangement to her temporomandibular joint (TMJ). Plaintiff required 60 stitches and was left with minor scarring. The testimony of plaintiff’s treating dentist and defendants’ examining oral surgeon, as well as that of plaintiff regarding her episodes of open lockjaw, with pain in her TMJ, audible clicking and limited ability to open her mouth and chew certain tough foods, amply supports the jury’s finding of a “serious injury” pursuant to Insurance Law § 5102 (d). In addition, the serious injury threshold was met by plaintiff’s permanent nerve loss in seven teeth, which required a series of root canal treatments and significant restorative dental work. The jury was entitled to credit the expert opinion of plaintiffs treating dentist that plaintiffs TMJ condition was permanent, even though he was not a specialist in oral surgery (see, Humphrey v Jewish Hosp. & Med. Ctr., 172 AD2d 494). We find the award of damages does not deviate materially from what is reasonable compensation under the circumstances.

We have considered defendants’ other contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Tom, Mazzarelli and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (John Parker, J.), entered May 29, 1997, which, after a jury trial, inter alia, awarded plaintiff damages in the amount of $200,000 for past pain and suffering, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff was a passenger in a medallion taxi cab operated by defendant Nelson and owned by defendant Pithio that collided with a vehicle owned by defendant Miller Brewing Co. and operated by defendant Boneker. Plaintiff’s face was thrown [266]*266against the plexiglass partition separating the front and rear seats, causing lacerations to her face and to the inside of her mouth, minor paresthesia affecting a portion of her chin and lower lip, trauma to seven lower teeth and internal derangement to her temporomandibular joint (TMJ). Plaintiff required 60 stitches and was left with minor scarring. The testimony of plaintiff’s treating dentist and defendants’ examining oral surgeon, as well as that of plaintiff regarding her episodes of open lockjaw, with pain in her TMJ, audible clicking and limited ability to open her mouth and chew certain tough foods, amply supports the jury’s finding of a “serious injury” pursuant to Insurance Law § 5102 (d). In addition, the serious injury threshold was met by plaintiff’s permanent nerve loss in seven teeth, which required a series of root canal treatments and significant restorative dental work. The jury was entitled to credit the expert opinion of plaintiffs treating dentist that plaintiffs TMJ condition was permanent, even though he was not a specialist in oral surgery (see, Humphrey v Jewish Hosp. & Med. Ctr., 172 AD2d 494). We find the award of damages does not deviate materially from what is reasonable compensation under the circumstances.

We have considered defendants’ other contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Tom, Mazzarelli and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

251 A.D.2d 265, 675 N.Y.S.2d 56, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7799, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mancusi-v-miller-brewing-co-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack