You are here: / / Loss of Teeth is “Serious Injury” Re: Assault Second
,

Loss of Teeth is “Serious Injury” Re: Assault Second

The First Department determined the loss of teeth (in an assault) was a “serious injury” within the meaning of Penal Law 10.00 (10) because the loss of teeth constituted a “serious and protracted disfigurement” notwithstanding replacement by a prostheses:

The element of serious physical injury (Penal Law § 10.00[10]) was established, because the victim’s permanent loss of four front teeth constituted a protracted impairment of her health or protracted loss or impairment of the function of a bodily organ … . Since the teeth are lost, the victim can never eat with them, notwithstanding that she has been fitted with a prosthetic device; accordingly, her loss is not just protracted, but permanent. While the fact that damage to an organ has been successfully repaired may affect whether the injury qualifies as serious …, this does not apply when the organ is permanently lost, irrespective of whether it is replaced by a prosthesis.

Furthermore, the victim’s loss of four front teeth also constituted a “serious and protracted disfigurement,” since “a reasonable observer would find her altered appearance distressing or objectionable” … . The fact that the victim received a removable prosthetic device did not ameliorate the seriousness of her injuries, since whenever she removes the device, the disfigurement will be readily apparent.  People v Everett, 2013 NY Slip Op 06954, 1st Dept 10-24-13

 

 

You might also like
MISSING CHAIR IN FRONT OF A SLOT MACHINE IS OPEN AND OBVIOUS AND NONACTIONABLE, PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHEN SHE ATTEMPTED TO SIT IN FRONT OF A MACHINE WHERE THERE WAS NO CHAIR (FIRST DEPT).
THE STIPULATION OF DIVORCE DIVESTED THE HUSBAND OF HIS RIGHTS IN THE MARITAL PROPERTY; THEREFORE THE HUSBAND’S JUDGMENT CREDITOR COULD NOT REACH THE PROPERTY EVEN THOUGH THE HUSBAND’S NAME REMAINED ON THE DEED (FIRST DEPT).
QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE ASSAILANT WAS AN INTRUDER AND WHETHER THE LANDLORD HAD NOTICE OF THE DEFECTIVE DOOR LOCK IN THIS THIRD-PARTY ASSAULT CASE; LANDLORD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
A FALL OF 2O TO 25 FEET FROM A RAMP USED TO TRANSPORT MATERIALS IS COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240(1) (FIRST DEPT.)
COMBINED RACIAL-GENDER BIAS IS A PROPER SUBJECT OF A BATSON CHALLENGE TO THE REMOVAL OF A JUROR; APPELLATE DIVISION HAS INTEREST OF JUSTICE JURISDICTION TO REVIEW BATSON ERRORS.
THERE ARE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANTS WERE NOTIFIED THAT THE ELEVATOR DOORS CLOSED TOO FAST AND WHETHER REPAIRS TO THE DOOR COULD BE RELATED TO THE CLOSING VELOCITY; PLAINTIFF ALLEGED HIS THUMB WAS CAUGHT IN THE CLOSING DOOR; DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
BECAUSE LOOSE PLANKS ON A SCAFFOLD CONSTITUTED A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S FALL IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) ACTION, PLAINTIFF’S ACTS OR OMISSIONS COULD NOT BE THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE FALL AND THE RECALCITRANT WORKER DEFENSE WAS NOT AVAILABLE (FIRST DEPT). ​
THE NYPD’S FAILURE TO TIMELY COMPLY WITH A COURT ORDER REQUIRING THE RELEASE OF DOCUMENTS PURSUANT TO A FOIL REQUEST WARRANTED THE AWARD OF ATTORNEY’S FEES TO PETITIONER; RESPONDENT NYPD’S ABANDONING AN ISSUE IN A PRIOR APPEAL PRECLUDED APPELLATE REVIEW OF THAT ISSUE IN A SUBSEQUENT APPEAL (FIRST DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Music Teachers Are Employees Not Independent Contractors Invocation of Right to Counsel When Not in Custody Can Be Withdrawn Without...