Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Christine MANCUSI, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. MILLER BREWING CO., et al., Defendants-Appellants.
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 against 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 lock jaw, with pain in her TMJ, audible clicking and limited ability to open her mouth and chew certain tough foods, amply supports the jury's findings 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 plaintiff's treating dentist that plaintiff's TMJ condition was permanent, even though he was not a specialist in oral surgery (see, Humphrey v. Jewish Hosp. & Med. Center of Brooklyn, 172 A.D.2d 494, 567 N.Y.S.2d 737). 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.
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: June 30, 1998
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)