Maldonado v Piccirilli

2010 NY Slip Op 00933 [70 AD3d 785]

February 9, 2010

Appellate Division, Second Department

As corrected through Wednesday, March 31, 2010

Candy Maldonado, Appellant, v James A. Piccirilli et al.,Respondents.

—[*1]Matthew J. Cavalier, Ronkonkoma, N.Y., for appellant.

Hammill, O'Brien, Croutier, Dempsey, Pender & Koehler, P.C., Syosset, N.Y. (AntonPiotroski of counsel), for respondent James A. Piccirilli.

Shayne, Dachs, Corker, Sauer & Dachs, LLP, Mineola, N.Y. (Jonathan A. Dachs ofcounsel), for respondent Jorge Manuel DaSilva.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order ofthe Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Kerins, J.), dated September 12, 2008, which granted themotion of the defendant Jorge Manuel DaSilva, and the separate motion of the defendant JamesA. Piccirilli, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them onthe ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law§ 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

In opposition to the defendants' respective prima facie showings of their entitlement tojudgment as a matter of law, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether shesustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result ofthe subject accident. The plaintiff alleged that the injuries to her face and nose sustained in theaccident constituted a "significant disfigurement" and, therefore, qualified as a serious injurywithin the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). Contrary to the plaintiff's contention,however, the photographs she submitted in opposition to the defendants' motions refute the claimthat a reasonable person viewing the plaintiff's face would, as a result of the remnants of theinjury, regard it as unattractive or objectionable, or as the object of pity and scorn (see Lynch v Iqbal, 56 AD3d 621[2008]; Sirmans v Mannah, 300 AD2d 465 [2002]; Loiseau v Maxwell, 256AD2d 450 [1998]; Edwards v DeHaven, 155 AD2d 757 [1989]). Accordingly, theSupreme Court properly granted the defendant's respective motions for summary judgmentdismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them. Fisher, J.P., Santucci, Angiolillo, Halland Lott, JJ., concur.