Automobile Liability

In a personal injury case involving a collision between plaintiff, a pedestrian, and an E-bike operated by defendant, the plaintiff claimed a significant disfigurement due to the scar on her face. The Supreme Court of New York, New York County denied defendant’s motion for summary judgement. Hazzard v. V & L Pizzeria & Rest., 2026 NY Slip Op 31859(U) (Sup. Ct.).

Following the collision, the plaintiff briefly lost consciousness and sustained a gash above her left eye, requiring stiches. The plaintiff later underwent surgery to address the scar above her left eye and claimed significant disfigurement. In support of their motion for summary judgement, the defendants relied on expert reports indicating minimal scarring and no significant visual disability. The court determined that the 'serious injury' threshold under Insurance Law §5104 did not apply because the collision involved an E-bike, which is not classified as a motor vehicle under Vehicle & Traffic Law §125(e). Even if the threshold applied, the defendants failed to meet their prima facie burden to show that the plaintiff could meet the 'serious injury' requirement. The defendants' expert, Dr. Goldstein, acknowledged the presence of a scar on the plaintiff's face, and there was no expert testimony to refute that the scar could constitute a significant disfigurement. The plaintiff's medical records also documented a restriction in the visual field of her left eye, which could be viewed as a significant limitation of use of a body function or system. Even if the serious injury threshold did apply, the court noted that the defendants did not provide sufficient evidence to establish that the plaintiff's injuries were insufficient to meet the 'serious injury' threshold.