Gong Ming Chen v. Zhong Ming Xiao

Gong Ming Chen v Zhong Ming Xiao (2025 NY Slip Op 51411(U)) [*1] Gong Ming Chen v Zhong Ming Xiao 2025 NY Slip Op 51411(U) Decided on September 11, 2025 Appellate Term, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports. Decided on September 11, 2025 SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT PRESENT: Brigantti, J.P., Tisch, James, JJ. 570798/25 Gong Ming Chen, Plaintiff-Appellant, against Zhong Ming Xiao and Li Yang Limo, Inc., Defendants-Respondents. Plaintiff appeals from 1) an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Jeffrey S. Zellan, J.), entered October 1, 2024, which denied defendant Zhong Ming Xiao's motion to strike plaintiff's complaint for failure to comply with discovery demands; and 2) an order of the same court (Anna R. Lewis, J.), entered April 16, 2025, which granted defendants' motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Per Curiam. Order (Anna R. Lewis, J.), entered April 16, 2025, affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order (Jeffrey S. Zellan, J.), entered October 1, 2024, dismissed, without costs, on the ground that plaintiff is not aggrieved by the order. The evidentiary proof submitted by defendants established, prima facie, that plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury under the "significant disfigurement" category of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the motor vehicle accident. Their plastic surgeon described the 2.7 centimeter scar on plaintiff's left eyebrow as "extremely well-healed, difficult to see, and placed into a natural wrinkle crease ... and is barely perceptible by sight" (see Forster v Novic, 127 AD3d 605 [2015]; Hutchinson v Beth Cab Corp., 204 AD2d 151 [1994]). A photograph taken by the plastic surgeon bears out this description. In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise any triable issue of fact that the scar constitutes a "significant disfigurement," i.e., one that "a reasonable person would view ... as unattractive, objectionable, or as the subject of pity or scorn" (Manrique v Warshaw Woolen Assoc., 297 AD2d 519, 526 [2002] [in dissent]). Plaintiff offered no medical evidence as to the severity of the scar or any recent photograph to rebut defendant's showing (see Forster v Novic, 127 AD3d at 605; Aguilar v Hicks, 9 AD3d 318 [2004]). Plaintiff is not aggrieved by the denial of defendant's motion for discovery sanctions. His appeal from that order is therefore dismissed (see CPLR 5511). THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT. I concur I concur I concur Decision Date: September 11, 2025