Tugman v. PJC Sanitation Service, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tugman v. PJC Sanitation Service, Inc.

23 A.D.3d 457, 805 N.Y.S.2d 607

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

DecidedNovember 14, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 23 A.D.3d 457 (Tugman v. PJC Sanitation Service, Inc.) 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

Tugman v. PJC Sanitation Service, Inc., 23 A.D.3d 457, 805 N.Y.S.2d 607 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant PJC Sanitation Service, Inc., appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Johnson, J), dated August 12, 2004, as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it on the ground that the plaintiff Lorenzo Tugman did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The scar on the injured plaintiff’s neck, as depicted in photographs in the record, raised a triable issue of fact as to whether he incurred a “significant disfigurement” as defined by Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see Hemmes v Twedt, 180 AD2d 925, 926 [1992]). Consequently, the appellant’s motion for summary judgment was properly denied. Adams, J.P., Ritter, Goldstein, Skelos and Dillon, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant PJC Sanitation Service, Inc., appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Johnson, J), dated August 12, 2004, as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it on the ground that the plaintiff Lorenzo Tugman did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The scar on the injured plaintiff’s neck, as depicted in photographs in the record, raised a triable issue of fact as to whether he incurred a “significant disfigurement” as defined by Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see Hemmes v Twedt, 180 AD2d 925, 926 [1992]). Consequently, the appellant’s motion for summary judgment was properly denied. Adams, J.P., Ritter, Goldstein, Skelos and Dillon, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 A.D.3d 457, 805 N.Y.S.2d 607, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tugman-v-pjc-sanitation-service-inc-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack