Sidibe v. Cordero

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sidibe v. Cordero

79 A.D.3d 536, 913 N.Y.S.2d 78

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

DecidedDecember 14, 2010

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 79 A.D.3d 536 (Sidibe v. Cordero) 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

Sidibe v. Cordero, 79 A.D.3d 536, 913 N.Y.S.2d 78 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Patricia Anne Williams, J.), entered September 9, 2009, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that infant plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating, through an affirmed report of a plastic surgeon and photographs, that the infant plaintiff did not sustain a “significant disfigurement” within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). Rather, the photographs reflect minor skin discoloration on the infant plaintiffs left cheek, left temple and near the right antihelical rim. In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The “recent” photographs of the infant plaintiff fail to support a finding that “a reasonable person would view [the facial discoloration] as unattractive, objectionable, or as the subject of pity or scorn” (Hutchinson v Beth Cab Corp., 207 AD2d 283, 283 [1994] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see Santos v Taveras, 55 AD3d 405, 406 [2008]).

We have considered plaintiffs’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Sweeny, J.E, Moskowitz, Renwick, DeGrasse and Román, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Patricia Anne Williams, J.), entered September 9, 2009, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that infant plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating, through an affirmed report of a plastic surgeon and photographs, that the infant plaintiff did not sustain a “significant disfigurement” within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). Rather, the photographs reflect minor skin discoloration on the infant plaintiffs left cheek, left temple and near the right antihelical rim. In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The “recent” photographs of the infant plaintiff fail to support a finding that “a reasonable person would view [the facial discoloration] as unattractive, objectionable, or as the subject of pity or scorn” (Hutchinson v Beth Cab Corp., 207 AD2d 283, 283 [1994] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see Santos v Taveras, 55 AD3d 405, 406 [2008]).

We have considered plaintiffs’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Sweeny, J.E, Moskowitz, Renwick, DeGrasse and Román, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

79 A.D.3d 536, 913 N.Y.S.2d 78, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sidibe-v-cordero-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack