In Barbieri v. Mount Sinai Hospital, 264 A.D.2d 1 (1st Dept. 2000), the Court granted summary judgment in favor of the third-party defendant (movant) after concluding that movant established that the plaintiff did not have a serious injury as defined by the statute. In that action, third-party plaintiff (opponent) opposed the motion submitting that the pleadings, specifically the bill of particulars and the complaint, established that the plaintiff had sustained a serious injury pursuant to the statute . (Id.) Specifically, the opponent stated that the plaintiff's injuries, facial lacerations and cognitive injuries, were akin to "permanent and severe facial disfigurement" and "injury to the brain caused by an external physical force resulting in permanent total disability." (Id.) In essence, opponent sought to have the Court deviate from applying the statute in its literal sense. Instead, opponent sought to have the Court interpret the words in the statute. The Court declined to apply the statute in anything other than its plain and narrow meaning. The Court reasoned that the injuries as pled, were not the "grave" injuries enumerated under the statute. In analyzing that case, the Court held that facial lacerations were alleged and not facial disfigurement as mandated by the statute. Id. With respect to the brain injury, the Court held that the cognitive injuries alleged were not alleged to have been permanent and totally disabling as required by the statute. (Id.)