MALDONADO v. PICCIRILLI

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

In opposition to the defendants' respective prima facie showings of their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether she sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject accident. The plaintiff alleged that the injuries to her face and nose sustained in the accident constituted a "significant disfigurement" and, therefore, qualified as a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). Contrary to the plaintiffs contention, however, the photographs she submitted in opposition to the defendants' motions refute the claim that a reasonable person viewing the plaintiffs face would, as a result of the remnants of the injury, regard it as unattractive or objectionable, or as the object of pity and scorn ( see Lynch v Iqbal, 56 AD3d 621; Sirmans v Mannah, 300 AD2d 465; Loiseau v Maxwell, 256 AD2d 450; Edwards v DeHaven, 155 AD2d 757). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant's respective motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.