New York Personal Injury Lawyer Blog

The deceased woman was seriously injured in an accident. She died from such accident injuries and was survived by her husband and twelve children, seven of whom were infants at the time of her death.

From 1966 to 1972, the Department of Social Services furnished AFDC (Assistance for Families with Dependent Children) to the deceased and her infant children in the sum of approximately $36,000. Since all assistance and care of whatever nature was furnished before the injury then no lien may be attached to any personal injury recovery.

The administrator of the deceased woman’s estate commenced a combined action for personal injuries and wrongful death. The combined action has been settled for $100,000. The Court allocated $12,500 to the personal injury cause payable to the estate for the 4 3/4ths days the woman survived.
The Department recognizes that in the absence of an assignment from the beneficiaries, there is no right to recover from the proceeds of the wrongful death cause. Recovery is sought by the Department solely from the estate.

The deceased woman’s estate is the estate of a Recipient. As an estate of a recipient, the estate is responsible for all AFDC allocated to such recipient as the head of the family under the Social Services Law. A recipient's estate is not responsible for Medical Assistance paid to such recipient unless the recipient was over 65 and left no surviving spouse or children under 21 under the Social Services Law.

According to a New York Injury Lawyer, the deceased woman’s estate is also the estate of an RR (Responsible Relative). The estate of a deceased adult Responsible Relative is responsible for all AFDC payments allocated to the Responsible Relative’s infant children under the Social Services Law. A Living Responsible Relative would not be responsible unless of sufficient ability during the period of assistance. The estate of a Responsible Relative is probably not responsible for MA furnished to infant children although a living parent would, if of sufficient ability, be responsible. It is determined in any event that the deceased was not of sufficient ability during the period of assistance.

It is obvious from the above that the Department's right to recover for AFDC payments to the deceased and her infant children will far exceed the net estate after administration expenses. The distribution of the proceeds of both the personal injury cause and the wrongful death cause is made by separate decision.

The recurring problem of the right of Social Service Departments to recover for public assistance and care given to needy recipients has been troubling our courts since 1935 and with increasing frequency of late. In our Supreme Court, such issues arise mainly with respect to claims by a Department against personal injury recoveries. A Brooklyn Personal Injury Lawyer said that the Surrogate's Courts are concerned with claims by a Department against estates and as well against beneficiaries of the estates.

Although there have been hundreds of reported decisions, for reasons which are obvious, none has attempted to articulate at any length the basis for such decision.

In the absence of a recovery ruling authorizing a Department to recover assistance and care correctly paid, there is no obligation to repay the Department. New York has enacted such recovery statutes. Although enacted separately, these recovery statutes are interrelated and dependent upon one another.

A recovery ruling is one which authorizes a Department to recover the cost of assistance and care from a recipient or the estate of such recipient, and from a responsible relative of such recipient or from the estate of such responsible relative.

Almost all assistance and care to the needy of the state is today given under one or another of the categorical programs mainly Assistance for Families with Dependent Children and Medical Assistance under the Social Security Act. A Bronx Personal Injury Lawyer said that as a condition of federal assistance, some of these programs limit the resources, both in terms of the recipient's property and contribution from his responsible relatives, to which the State may look in determining eligibility. As a consequence, New York has been compelled to amend its recovery rulings or enact new recovery rulings. Pre-amendment decisions in many cases are no longer relevant.

Since Departments often contend before the courts that denial of recovery imperils federal assistance, it should be observed that the Social Security Act does not require as a condition of assistance that States enact recovery orders. In fact many States have none. True, Congress has given implied recognition to recovery orders by requiring States which do recover to share the recovered proceeds. But the federal law is directed toward incorrectly not correctly paid assistance.

Under the recovery laws, recovery may often be had against the mother for assistance allocated to her but not to the children. The Departments are required to maintain separate allocations and are most cooperative in furnishing such records to the courts.

With these general observations, recovery law is the basic law which in the first instance determines liability and around which the other laws revolve.

It became a statewide law when the State took over from the municipality’s responsibility for public assistance.

As originally enacted in 1929, a spouse was responsible for the other spouse; grandparents and parents were responsible for their adult and infant grandchildren and adult and infant children and grandchildren were responsible for their parents and grandparents.

The first major change in the decree was made in 1936 and the amendment exempted infant children or grandchildren from all responsibility for their parents or grandparents. Although no decision has considered the question, the 1936 amendment also exempted infant spouses and infant parents from all responsibility for assistance and care given to their spouses or infant children, while such Responsible Relative spouse or parent was an infant.

The next and last major amendment was made in 1966. The 1966 amendment exempted adult children from responsibility for their parents and exempted parents from all responsibility for their adult children. Parents, however, remained responsible for their infant children and adult children remained responsible for their spouses and infant children.

It is observed that the 1966 amendment was commanded on the States by the Social Security Act but only with respect to the MA categorical program. New York State, in amending the law, made the new provisions applicable to all assistance whether federally or solely locally supported.

In addition to defining who are Responsible Relatives also limited the conditions under which a Responsible Relative could be found liable. The law specifically provides that one is a Responsible Relative only if of sufficient ability.

This provision, as discussed has been held to mean of sufficient ability during the period when assistance was being provided to the recipient relative.

The law further limits the liability of a Responsible Relative. Subject to such further limitations, under the definitions of present section of the law, only an adult spouse for assistance and care to his spouse or an adult parent and step-parent only for assistance and care to his infant children or stepchildren can be held responsible as a Responsible Relative.

But such Responsible Relatives can only be held responsible if they were of sufficient ability during the period when assistance was being given to their recipient relative.

And, in conclusion, an infant can never be held responsible as a Responsible Relative.
As first enacted in 1901 it applied only to the liability of the recipient. It was modified in 1929 to apply to recipients, to the estates of recipients, to the Responsible Relatives and to the estates of the Responsible Relatives.

A public welfare official may bring action or proceeding against a person discovered to have real or personal property, or against the estate of a person who dies leaving real or personal property, if such person or anyone for whose support he is or was liable, received assistance and care during the preceding ten years, and shall be entitled to recover up to the value of such property the cost of such assistance or care. Any public assistance or care received by such person shall constitute an implied contract.

As observed, the law gives to a Department the right to recover against the recipient himself; against the Responsible Relative of the recipient; against the estate of a recipient, and against the estate of the Responsible Relative.

The law distinguishes between actions brought to recover from the Living recipient or his living Responsible Relative and actions or claims against the Estates of deceased recipients or Responsible Relatives.

With respect to actions against living recipients and Responsible Relatives, from its inception in 1929, the law has permitted recovery from such persons discovered to have real or personal property. Whatever may have been the original purpose of employing such odd but broad statutory language, the decisions establish that the law has never been used by the Departments to recover from wages or salaries of living recipients or Responsible Relatives or from property acquired from such earnings. Today this is an established policy. The policy is understandable since the expressed purpose of public assistance is to assist the recipient to attain and retain self-supporting status.

Instead, as the decisions establish, the thrust of proceedings by the Departments against Living recipients and Responsible Relatives has been to recover from windfalls to them resulting from personal injury recoveries or inheritances as beneficiaries from another's estate.

In fighting for your loved one’s rights in an accident brought about by the negligence of other people, call Stephen Bilkis and Associates.

This case involves a decedent who lived with her two young sisters and their mother. The decedent’s biological father, a convicted felon, had abandoned her. In early 2004, the boyfriend of the decedent’s mother, moved in with the family. In May and again in August 2004, the decedent was taken to health care facilities for treatment of various injuries, including a broken bone and head trauma. According to plaintiff, these instances of suspected abuse were reported to defendants County of Greene, County of Greene Mental Health, County of Greene Department of Social Services and/or County of Greene Child Protective Services (collectively, the County defendants).

According to a New York Injury Lawyer, following the August incident, the mother’s boyfriend was apparently ordered to leave the family home. However, on 21 November 2004, the decedent died tragically as a result of injuries intentionally inflicted upon her by the mother’s boyfriend. At about two weeks later, the mother and the mother’s boyfriend each charged in connection with Egypt's death. An action for wrongful death and personal injury were filed. Damages recovered would ultimately benefit the siblings as sole distributees by intestacy. The decedent’s mother pleaded guilty to criminally negligent homicide and was subsequently sentenced to a prison term of 1 1/3 to 4 years. The mother’s boyfriend, following a jury trial, was convicted of second-degree murder and sentenced to a term of 25 years to life imprisonment.

Shortly after the decedent’s death in December 2004, plaintiff was appointed as the attorney for the decedent’s sisters, in connection with an abuse and neglect proceeding pending in Family Court against their mother and their mother’s boyfriend, and the administrator of the decedent’s estate in October 2006.

Initially, the court determined that the wrongful death claim was timely because the notice of claim was filed within 90 days from plaintiff's appointment as administrator and the action was commenced within two years from the time of the decedent’s death, as required by statute. Turning to the personal injury cause of action, the court found that the notice of claim was untimely because it was not filed within 90 days after the claim arose. Recognizing that it lacked the discretion to extend the time beyond the expiration of the applicable one–year–and–90–day limitations period, the court relied on a prior decision to conclude that the toll afforded by CPLR 208 applied, based on the infancy of the decedent’s siblings, and, as a result, the statute of limitations did not begin to run until plaintiff's appointment as administrator in October 2006. In a landmark case, the Court held that the CPLR 208 infancy toll applies when an infant is the sole distributee in a wrongful death action. The court subsequently granted plaintiff leave to file the late notice of claim.

A Nassau County Personal Injury Lawyer said that this is referred to as the “survival statute,” provides that “[n]o cause of action for injury to person or property is lost because of the death of the person in whose favor the cause of action existed. For any injury an action may be brought or continued by the personal representative of the decedent.” 4 As a condition precedent to initiating a personal injury action against a municipality, a notice of claim must be served within 90 days after the claim arises. The action must also be commenced within the statutorily prescribed one–year–and–90–day limitations period. Although a court is authorized to extend the filing of a notice of claim beyond the 90–day period, the time for filing may not be extended beyond the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations.

The decedent first sustained injuries at some point in early 2004 and died on 21 November 2004. Since a notice of claim was not filed within 90 days from her death, leave to file a late notice was necessary. The personal injury claim accrued no later than the date of her death and, absent the application of a toll, the one–year–and–90–day limitations period expired in February 2006. Because the request for leave to file a late notice was not made within that time frame, as mandated by General Municipal Law, an extension of time to file such notice is not statutorily authorized unless the limitations period was tolled.

In wrongful death actions, claims belong to a decedent's distributees rather than the estate standing in place of the decedent. For example, we observed that “any damages recovered are exclusively for the benefit of the decedent's distributees” and that “the cause of action is not part of and bears no legal relationship to decedent's estate”. Moreover, any damages must be “measured by the effect of the wrongful act on the distributees—the pecuniary loss suffered by the individual distributees as a result of decedent's death” (id.). In contrast, a personal injury action brought seeks damages for an injury to the decedent and belongs to the estate. Lastly, we stressed that in a wrongful death case involving a sole infant distributee, it is the “infant child who has suffered any loss recognized by law” ( id.).

As held before, where no personal representative was otherwise available, it was reasonable to look at the distributee's infancy status because the wrongful death claim belonged to him and would compensate him for damages that he directly sustained as a result of his mother's death. A Queens Personal Injury Lawyer said that the distributee was “the only person ... whose interests are at stake in bringing this [wrongful death] action”. In effect, we treated the distributee as the plaintiff under the tolling statute because, for all intents and purposes, the claim was his own.

Now, unlike a wrongful death claim that directly compensates a decedent's distributees for their own damages, a personal injury claim is designed to compensate the decedent for injuries suffered and is personal to the deceased—in other words, it is a claim assumed by the estate.
A wrongful death action belongs to the decedent's distributees and is designed to compensate the distributees themselves for their pecuniary losses as a result of the wrongful act. The proceeds are paid directly to the distributees in the proportions directed by the court, determined by their respective monetary injuries. On the other hand, a personal injury action on behalf of the deceased seeks recovery for the conscious pain and suffering of the deceased and any damages awarded accrue to the estate. Such a claim is personal to the deceased and belongs to the estate, not the distributees. The types of damages that are recoverable are different and the calculations of damages for the two claims are based on separate factors.
For the reason that it is the estate that recovers in a personal injury action, any proceeds will first be applied to outstanding liens, debts or expenses. Only after the obligations of the estate are fulfilled would any remaining funds be paid to beneficiaries or distributees. This is in stark contrast to the damages recoverable in a wrongful death action, where any proceeds are generally not subject to the claims of the estate's creditors. In short, the two causes of action are “predicated on essentially different theories of loss which accrue to different parties”. The infant distributees here do not seek to recover their own damages through a personal injury claim. Rather, they hope to inherit through intestacy any damages that their sister would have been entitled to had she survived. The necessary connection between infant distributees and a personal injury action brought on behalf of the deceased under is missing since such a claim redresses a wrong suffered by the deceased, not the distributees.

In conclusion, the special infancy toll applicable in wrongful death actions involving sole infant distributees is not available for personal injury claims.

Consequently, the motion was denied and the personal injury claim dismissed.

Have you lost someone you loved so dearly by reason of a wrongful act inflicted by another? Don’t just let them get away with it. Make them answer to you and the law. Don’t sleep on your rights. Contact Stephen Bilkis & Associates for proper advice on you legal remedies.

The defendant in this case has filed for a motion seeking summary judgment against the plaintiff’s complaint. The defendant has also filed a motion to dismiss the personal injury case of the plaintiff.

On the day of the accident, the plaintiff was on a field trip with her other classmates at the roller skating rink. While the plaintiff was skating, he was suddenly struck from behind by another skater on the rink. He fell down and suffered a broken bone.

A New York Injury Lawyer said that due the injury acquired, the plaintiff filed for damages because of the alleged negligence of the plaintiff. The defendant in this case is the school district in which the plaintiff is attending. According to the complaint of the plaintiff, the defendant was negligent it failed to provide the proper instructions for skating. The school district allegedly did not train its employees or orient them when skating events are ongoing. The school district or defendant was also accused of failing to supervise the students while inside the skating rink.

The defendant has contended that the supervision provided by the school district has been sufficient. According to the defendant’s statement, the school district did not breach any duty expected of it towards the plaintiff. The defendant relies on the testimony of the substitute teacher present during the field trip. According to her testimony, the nurse, assistant principal and three other substitute teachers were in attendance during the skating rink field trip.

Upon further investigation, an NYC Personal Injury Lawyer said the counsel reported that since it was a sudden accident, meaning everything happened in an instant, there was no amount of supervision that could have prevented it from happening. Therefore, the lack of supervision was not the cause of the plaintiff’s accident.

A NY Personal Injury Lawyer said there was no information provided regarding the issue of school employees having watched the plaintiff skating together with the other students. The plaintiff stated in his testimony that he did not see his classmates engage in roughhousing. The counsel for the defendant argues that the plaintiff had assumed all the risks of the skating and field trip. Therefore, the school should not be held liable for the injuries sustained by the plaintiff while skating.

According to the side of the plaintiff, the defendant’s reference to the assumption of risk is not applicable to the case and should not stand as an obstacle for the plaintiff to recover damages. In his testimony, the plaintiff had said that his teachers required him to participate in the activity.

Since the plaintiff had no skating experience prior to the accident, he couldn’t possibly have been ready to face all the risks that would come with skating. The counsels for the plaintiff also said that the defendants failed to give proper instructions to the plaintiff and warn him of the dangers to avoid while skating.

The defendant argues that the school does not have the duty to instruct students on how to skate since their only responsibility as teachers would be to supervise the children under their care. As a general law, the school can be held liable for injuries sustained by the children due to lack of supervision.

According to previous cases, schools should not be regarded as guarantors of safety since they are not expected to constantly monitor all the activities of the children. They should not be liable for every careless action or activity that students engage in. School personnel cannot be expected to guard against sudden events or actions that may be a part of the student’s daily life. The duty owed by the school comes from the fact that teachers replace parents when the children become students of the school.

The court has determined that the defendant has established its motion for summary judgment and has provided sufficient supervision over the children. The court also acknowledges that the plaintiff’s accident was a spontaneous one. No type of supervision could have foreseen such event.

Personal injury cases can be tough if you don’t have proper legal representation. A lawyer can help you with your legal problems. Consult Stephen Bilkis & Associates for an immediate response. Their legal team can help you prepare for any wrongful death or personal injury case.

A father asked a court to vacate an order of protection issued against the father and an order granting sole legal and physical custody of the father's child to the child's grandmother. According to the records of the case, the child's mother left the child when the child was barely a month old. Until the time the orders were issued, the mother's whereabouts are unknown. The child was left at the care of the father and the child's paternal grandmother.

According to a New York Injury Lawyer, an action for child custody and for acts of domestic violence was filed by the child's grandmother asking the court to grant her custody of the child. The request was granted, after the court considered credible testimony and evidence presented by the grandmother, as well as the father's sister. According to their testimonies, the father is an alcoholic who drinks alcohol excessively from early morning through each evening. The witnesses also said the father is aggressive and threatening toward the child. The testimony also pointed out an instance when the father, who has already consumed significant amounts of alcohol, drove a vehicle with the child. The witnesses said the father is unable to properly care for the child with respect to food and clothing and housing due to his excessive and persistent use of alcohol.

During the inquest proceedings of the case, the law guardian for the child appeared but the father failed to make an appearance nor made any explanation with the court as to why he failed to appear. The father's counsel, however, asked for the matter to be adjourned because his client could not attend the proceeding because he had been scheduled to start an outpatient program for alcoholic abuse rehabilitation at a hospital. The request for adjournment was denied at the objection of the grandmother and the child's law guardian. They both asserted that further adjournment of the case is prejudicial and is detrimental to the child.

A Nassau County Personal Injury Lawyer said that based on the credible testimony and evidence, the Court found that it was in the best interest of the child for sole legal and physical custody to be awarded to the grandmother. The Court also found that the grandmother had established her burden of proof as to the family offense petition establishing that the father had committed harassment as against the grandmother and the child.

On the motion to vacate filed by the father, the court said that although courts have a liberal policy with respect to vacating defaults with respect to issues of custody, it does not apply the same liberality when it comes to family offense petitions and protection orders. The court explained that this is because the family law was created to attempt to stop violence, end family disruption and obtain protection.

The court pointed out that in this case, the issues behind the family offense and the custody petitions are inextricably intertwined. A Queens Personal Injury Lawyer said they have the same facts that the father was placing his child and the grandmother at risk and that he committed certain enumerated family offenses due to his excessive and pervasive abuse of alcohol. Because of the similarity of operative facts in the two cases, the court consolidated the two for evidence and testimony.

The court then concluded that if the custody order is vacated, it would also require a vacatur of the protection order. In this case, the court denied the motion to vacate.

The court explained that the father never gave any explanation why his non-appearance during the inquest proceedings was excusable. The court noted that the father gave conflicting explanations on his absence but all explanations are without merit.

Being involved in a domestic dispute is difficult for all. If you have been injured, including a head injury, back injury or spinal injury, call Stephen Bilkis & Associates and our legal team will make sure you and your rights are protected at all stages in the case. Our offices are conveniently located throughout the NY Metropolitan area.

The plaintiff filed a complaint against the defendant for sustaining personal injury due to a trip and fall accident. The plaintiff experinced a trip and fall while walking on the sidewalk near the premises of the defendant. According to the complaint, plaintiff accuses the defendant of negligence for allowing the defect to remain on the sidewalk. The plaintiff alleges that the sidewalk has an uneven portion thus making it unsafe for anyone who passes by.

The plaintiff was a taxi driver who tripped on the alleged defective sidewalk and fractured his arm. The defendants were the owners of the building. Therefore, they also own the sidewalk within the building premises.

According to the statement of the plaintiff, he was just walking along the sidewalk near the building when he tripped on an uneven part of the sidewalk and fell on the ground. The plaintiff cited the tenants of the building as the negligent parties since they did not do anything to the sidewalk even though it had a defect.

A New York Injury Lawyer said that the defendant contested the allegations of the plaintiff and said that the tenants of the building should not be held responsible since they did not cause the defect on the sidewalk. They also do not know of any law that was broken which delegated the tenants of the building to maintain and repair any defects found on the sidewalk.

The tenants also asserted that they are not covered by the city administrative code which states that the owner of the physical property was required to maintain and ensure the safety of the sidewalk. Since the tenants are not the owners of the property, they are not required to maintain and ensure the safety of the sidewalk. The tenants have submitted lease agreements as proof that they did not own the building in question. The plaintiff had no evidence that the tenants created the defect on the sidewalk. The plaintiff also could not establish that the tenants made any existing defect even worse.

A Bronx Personal Injury Lawyer said that the counsel for the plaintiff has said the original lease agreement was not submitted in this case. The plaintiff has also declared that no sufficient proof was presented to support the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The defendant provided only an affidavit from the legal counsel.

The co-defendant in this case is the owner of the building. The owner affirms that the motion for summary judgment was still premature. The building owner wants to know more about how the accident happened. The counsel of the building owner has declared that there may be more vital information which the plaintiff might have if the motion to dismiss the case was denied.

According to the provisions of the law, an abutting owner of a property should not have any liability for injuries sustained by someone who was just passing by on a defective sidewalk. The owner will only be liable for damages if the owner has caused the defect either by making special use of the sidewalk.

The administrative code of the city provides the responsibility to maintain and repair sidewalks on the property owners. Liability is also imposed on the abutting owners if any of them violates the statute and causes a breach of duty.

A Manhattan Personal Injury Lawyer said that in this regard, the court finds that the tenant can only be liable to damages if it was the owner of the property. Despite the existence of these provisions, the defendant has failed to establish sufficient evidence since only a counsel affidavit was presented to the court. The defendant also failed to get the testimony of a witness or a person who knows the information. The affidavit is not considered by law as sufficient basis for summary judgment.

A qualifed lawyer is ready to help you with your personal injury case. Contact the offices of Stephen Bilkis & Associates for a consultation.

The court in this case has ordered that the motion for summary judgment is granted to the defendant landscape company. Therefore, the personal injury complaint of the plaintiff is dismissed against that particular defendant. The motion for summary judgment filed by the defendant board of managers has been denied by the court.

The plaintiff in this case has filed a complaint and sought damages for her sustained injuries due to a trip and fall accident on the parking lot owned by the condominium complex. The plaintiff allegedly tripped over a tree stump located on the grassy portion of the parking lot. In her complaint, the plaintiff identifies the defendants concerned as failing to maintain and repair the defects of the premises. According to the plaintiff, she was injured because of the defendant’s negligence.

The court was presented with facts for review and finds these to be undisputed by any party. The defendant board of the condominium presented to the court a contract signed by the landscaping company. The contract contained provisions that the landscaping company has the responsibility to maintain the grounds including snow removal, cutting of grass and landscaping.

A New York Injury Lawyer said that according to the reports, the board of managers had ordered the landscaping company in 2006 to cut the bushes on the island located on the parking lot. The activity left tree stumps behind. The board of managers hired another company to replace the first one.

The first landscaping company, who was also named as one of the defendants of this case, has filed for a summary judgment and a dismissal of the complaint. The company contended that it is not liable to the plaintiff since its service contract came from the board of managers. The company should not be blamed for the creation of the defect or dangerous condition on the parking lot.

An NYC Personal Injury Lawyer said that before the trial, the plaintiff said that she and her daughter were residents of the condominium for many years now. On the night of her fall, she and her daughter were taking the dog for a walk. They had to go through a lot of islands on the parking lot in order to get to the walking area for dogs. While she was trying to cross another island, her foot tripped over a stump, causing her to fall.

In her statement, she also said that she had tripped over several stumps before her accident in the parking area. She did not remember if anything was blocking her view of the ground in that particular moment.

An NY Personal Injury Lawyer said on the part of the defendant landscape company, the court was presented with evidence that the company had not taken down the stumps on the island. Under the provisions of the contract, the landscape company was only tasked to perform landscaping services. It did not include any liability that would make it liable if there are personal injury claims from other parties.

The plaintiff challenged the landscape company because the company itself was aware of the existence of the stumps but did not do anything to remove them. In effect, the company created the defect or the dangerous condition on the parking lot. However, the plaintiff cannot prove that the company has the duty to remove the stumps.

Upon further review of the evidence and statements, the court has found that the defendant, the landscaping company, has failed to establish the conditions required by a summary judgment. Several questions are yet to be determined since it was not clear whether the landscape company performed its duties according to the contract. There was also the question of whether the company created the defect by cutting down the bushes and excluded the stumps.

If you know someone who needs skilled legal counsel, consult Stephen Bilkis & Associates for immediate action. The legal services of an attorney can help you prepare for any wrongful death or personal injury case.

The defendant, also the third party plaintiff in this case, has filed for a motion for summary judgment and to dismiss the third party complaint against another third party defendant. The defendant included in its motion also asserts that the insurance company must pay the housing company as part of the terms of liability.

According to a New York Injury Lawyer, the housing company has taken note of this motion and has moved for a summary judgment that would dismiss the allegations made against it. The insurance company has also filed a motion to dismiss the complaint of the third party. The main plaintiff in this case filed a motion for the court to provide her with partial summary judgment against the housing company.

According to the information presented, the plaintiff filed a complaint for sustaining personal injuries due to a trip and fall accident. The accident happed on the sidewalk just outside the property of the defendant. The plaintiff has alleged that she tripped and fell on the uneven sidewalk. The housing company was said to be the building owner while the restaurant belonged to a tenant including the space that leads to the sidewalk on the accident site.

A Nassau County Personal Injury Lawyer explained that based on the provisions of the law, the owner of the building that fronts a sidewalk has the duty and responsibility to maintain and repair the sidewalk in case of defects. The owner must ensure that his property is safe at all times. It is the owner of the property who will be liable for any injury claims. The failure to maintain a public sidewalk consists of a failure to create, reconstruct, repair and remove unnecessary material on the sidewalk.

Upon review of the provisions of the law, the landlord or the owner of the property cannot delegate or transfer this duty to anyone. Despite the fact that the owner of the property cannot escape its duty to maintain the safety of the sidewalk, the law does not provide a strict liability to be observed. The liability of the property owner will only be imposed when the owner has been proven to create or cause the defect. The owner will also be liable to the plaintiff if it has received due notice of the sidewalk defect. As owner and property landlord, a contract agreement can be entered between the tenants by acquiring liability insurance for the benefit of all.

According to the court findings, the statements of the witnesses do not corroborate with the testimonies given before the proceedings. In this regard, the housing company or the property owner has failed to establish whether or not there was prior notice before the accident.

The owner had signed a lease with an estate owned by a woman. After almost a decade, the spaces were sublet to other tenants. One of the tenants was a restaurant. It was considered a store lease. After another two years, the basement space was leased to a realty corporation.
According to the lease presented, the document contained provisions that the tenant should maintain, repair and ensure the safety of defective premises. This includes the sidewalks. They should be free from any defect. The lease also contains provisions that the tenants are responsible for maintaining the internal and exterior premises. The sidewalk is considered a part of exterior premises.

After all the facts and evidence are presented, a Queens Personal Injury Lawyer said the issue of whether or not the owner of the building showed negligence in failing to repair the sidewalk had not yet been decided by the court. However, the court has denied the motion for summary judgment by the defendant and owner of the property including the motion to dismiss the case.

If you require the services of an expert attorney, consult Stephen Bilkis & Associates. Our legal team is competent and knowledgeable in injury cases. If you are in need of legal assistance, Stephen Bilkis & Associates are ready for your visit in their downtown offices.

The defendant in this case has moved for a summary judgment and filed a motion to dismiss the personal injury case of the plaintiff due a trip and fall accident. With regard to the defendant’s motion, the plaintiff has moved to change her claim notice.

According to the claim document, the plaintiff filed the injury complaint because she wants to seek damages for the accident that happened to her in front of a building which is within the jurisdiction of the defendant. The plaintiff has alleged that she sustained injuries due to a defective sidewalk. The defendant in this case is a city.

In the plaintiff’s notice of claim, the plaintiff indicated that the defendant is considered as the owner of the defective sidewalk. Therefore, the defendant has the responsibility to ensure that the sidewalk is free from defects that may endanger the safety of the public. The city should be held accountable since it has agents and employees that are paid to inspect, maintain and repair any defects found on public property.

According to the provisions of the law, a New York Injury Lawyer explained that the notice of claim serves as a requirement in order for the plaintiff to recover damages against a city or municipality. The plaintiff has two defendants in this case. One is the transport authority and the other is the city itself.

Upon reviewing the notice of claim, the transport authority has discovered that the plaintiff has not made an allegation towards the agency. The agency has also found that while the complaint includes the transport authority as liable, the notice of claim does not contain the same information. The defendant has asserted that it is not liable for the trip and fall accident.
The court is tasked to determine whether there is sufficient proof to establish the conditions required for summary judgment. The law states that the responsibility to keep roadways and sidewalks free from any defects falls on the city. This provision was cited by the transport authority to support its non-liability defense.

A Staten Island Personal Injury Lawyer said that according to the court, the party seeking a summary judgment must present sufficient proof that the complaint against it lacks merit. The failure of that party to do so will deny the motion for summary judgment. Once the party has established the evidence, the burden of opposing the motion lies on the other party. In this case, the plaintiff has to prove the existence of material issues for the case to proceed.

The transport authority does not have any link of ownership to the location described by the plaintiff. The court also noted that the plaintiff has not made any specification as to the liability of the transport authority. It was not clear to the court if the plaintiff has identified the transport authority in the notice of claim.

The notice of claim must be written and sworn by the plaintiff as a formal document for a claimant to recover damages. The document must also include the items that have been damaged or injuries sustained. The notice of claim is needed so that the court can decide if it contains sufficient information. The notice of claim will also allow the city or municipality to investigate on the matter. A Westchester County Personal Injury Lawyer said public records and other relevant documents will be checked concerning the alleged defect on the sidewalk.

Based on the evidence presented, the court has decided to grant the summary judgment as filed by the defendant. The plaintiff’s complaint against the transport authority was dismissed since there was no sufficient evidence to prove its liability. The plaintiff was denied of her cross-motion. Finally, the remainder of the case was ordered by the court to continue.

If you require the legal expertise of a lawyer, secure a meeting with Stephen Bilkis & Associates to help you get started. The competent skills of our legal team will help you in your legal battles.

The defendants of this case had filed for a summary judgment requesting dismissal for the personal injury complaint of the plaintiffs. The defendants have further claimed that the plaintiffs had failed in establishing that the alleged cause of their trip and fall was a defect on the premises. The defendants also contested that the reason for the plaintiffs’ fall was a trivial matter.

According to the plaintiff, she sustained personal injuries because she tripped and fell on the sidewalk just outside of the popular fast food chain. The restaurant and the physical property were owned by the defendant.

According to a New York Injury Lawyer, the plaintiff said in her testimony that the weather conditions on the day of the accident were cold. She went on to say that there was no snowfall or ice on the ground. The plaintiff is a regular user of the sidewalk in question since she used that route when getting to and back from her job. According to the plaintiff, there was not much room to move around on the sidewalk. She couldn’t have avoided the accident that day. She allegedly tripped on the uneven part of the sidewalk fronting the defendant’s premises. She also added the sidewalk was not crowded during that time.

On the other hand, a Brooklyn Personal Injury Lawyer said that the defendant contends that the height difference of the sidewalk is a trivial matter when it comes to the provisions of the law. The matter was not established as to the alleged defect being considered dangerous.
The plaintiff presented in her deposition specific pictures of the scene and the conditions that caused her to trip. She also asserted that there were no objects on the sidewalk or any precipitation since the weather was only cloudy that day. The plaintiff only cited the sidewalk as the cause of her fall.

According the law, a Bronx Personal Injury Lawyer explained that such defect on the sidewalk is trivial since it was not meant to be a trap. This trivial defect does not oblige the owner of the premises to act during instances that a pedestrian may happen to fall or stumble on uneven sidewalk.

The court has also found no evidence on the uneven sidewalk posing a threat by reason of its location. The sidewalk also does not pose a threat when there is a change in weather condition.

In summary of the plaintiff’s opposition to the defendant’s summary of judgment, the plaintiff asserted that the defendant was responsible for every part of its premises. She pointed out that the defendant had been using the sidewalk for its own special purposes. According to the plaintiff, the defendant had prior notice of such defect and failed to repair it. The defendant’s failure to repair the defect should be considered as negligence. The plaintiff also cited the provisions found on the administrative code since the code also debunks the trivial matter question.

According to the lease document of the defendant, there was a reference made regarding the condition of the sidewalk. The terms of the lease had included that the defendant was in-charge of repairing the said defect on the sidewalk. Yet, the defendant failed to repair it as provided by the terms of the lease.

However, the plaintiff in this case has not presented evidence that would constitute the sidewalk defect or uneven height differential as a trap or threat to pedestrian safety. The unevenness of the sidewalk was found to be only a trivial matter and does not hold the defendants liable for damages. Therefore, the court grants the summary of judgment as requested by both defendants – lessor of the property and the operator of the fast food chain. The personal injuries claim of the plaintiff is denied and the case dismissed.

Preparing for a personal injury case requires the expertise and training of competent legal counsel. If you want to have a legal consultation, contact Stephen Bilkis & Associates to get connected. The legal services of our office will increase your chances in court. Our legal team will be ready to listen and assist you in filing the lawsuit.

A student at the City University of New York was leaving the Performing Arts Center of Queens College at 11:30 p.m. when she stepped on a broken and raised part of the stairs which caused her to trip and fall. As it turned out, the student made a mistake when she mentioned in her complaint that she tripped and fell on the dangerous defect on the third set of stairs instead of the second set of stairs. She claimed that the stairs in front of the Performing Arts Center was poorly maintained and poorly lighted. She then asks for leave of court to amend her original complaint to reflect that she tripped and fell on the third set of stairs.

The City University of New York vigorously opposed the motion claiming that her mistake in the complaint is a defective flaw which fails to comply with the requirement of the statute. Under the Court of Claims Act, claims for personal injury must state the time and the place where the claim arose, specifically stating the nature of the claim and the injuries sustained.

According to a New York Injury Lawyer, the Claims Court is now tasked to determine whether the allegations contained in the student’s complaint is sufficient to comply with the requirements of the statute.

The Court notes that the law is strict in that failure to comply with the requirement of specifically stating the ultimate facts which comprise the cause and nature of the injury as well as the specific time and place it occurred will make the complaint susceptible to dismissal for failure to properly allege a cause of action. It is a jurisdictional infirmity that cannot be repaired by amending the complaint. A complaint with a defective or non-existent cause of action cannot be remedied by amendment as one cannot amend a complaint that, in the eyes of the law, does not exist.

The Performing Arts Center of Queens College has a long and wide stairway leading from the sidewalk to the entrance of the building. The long and wide stairway is broken into three sets of stairs by wide landings but the sets of stairs are still connected as one long stairway by those wide landings.

A Queens Personal Injury Lawyer said that the student mentioned in her complaint that she fell on the broken and raised steps of the third set of stairs instead of on the second set of stairs where the only broken and raised steps were located, did she commit a fatal flaw that would cause her complaint to be dismissed?

The Court opined that identifying the specific step on the stairs where the trip and fall occurred is not required by the law. This is logical because a trip and fall may involve bouncing off of more than one step. But the Court also observed that if there are more than one set of stairs, it would be necessary to specifically state the particular set of stairs where and when the trip and fall occurred.

A Brooklyn Personal Injury Lawyer said the Court noted with approval the observation by the Court of Appeals that the guiding purpose of the requirement for definite statements on the specific place and time of the trip and fall was to enable to courts to investigate the claim and to ascertain the liability.

The Court held that absolute exactness is not required by the law. Since there is only one long stairway in front of the Queens College Performing Arts Center, and the long stairway is broken only by landings, the student’s allegation in her complaint is sufficient compliance with the requirements of the statute. Under the original wording of the complaint, it can be determined where and when the trip and fall occurred. Thus, the Court granted the student’s motion for leave to amend her complaint.

You may be a student who tripped and fell at a sidewalk in your school. Whom can you sue? How can you word your complaint so that it specifically states the particular place and time when your injury was sustained? You need a lawyer to help you draft your complaint. At Stephen Bilkis & Associates, they have trained attorneys who can help you present your claims coherently. They can help build your case and present evidence in your behalf. They can argue for you and stand with you to see that you are compensated for your injuries. Call Stephen Bilkis & Associates and ask to meet with a lawyer who specializes in personal injury litigation as these.

A taxi driver was walking alone a sidewalk in Woodside, New York at 6:00 a.m. He was on the sidewalk outside 60-01 31st Avenue when he stepped on a raised and elevated sidewalk flag. This caused him to trip and fall. He fractured his right arm as a result of the trip and fall and he sued the owner of the premises as well as the two tenants of the premises who had shops abutting the sidewalk. The taxi driver’s wife joined the suit. She claimed damages for personal losses she sustained as a wife who lost the usual financial support from her husband that she was accustomed to, and for personal losses because she was unable to have normal conjugal relations with her husband during the time of his confinement due to his fractured right arm.

According to the New York Injury Lawyer, the owner of the premises and the taxi driver were deposed during discovery. The tenants of the premises did not depose the taxi driver. But then later both of the tenants filed separate motions for summary judgment against the owner of the premises and against the taxi driver and his wife.

The tenants alleged that as mere tenants they are not obligated by the law to maintain the premises. It is the owner of the premises who is obligated under the Administrative Code of New York who is responsible for injuries resulting from the negligent maintenance of sidewalks outside the property owned by them.

A New York City Personal Injury Lawyer said that the tenants also assert that they are mere lessees and there is no showing that they derived special use of the premises. There is no evidence in the record to show that they created the defect in the sidewalk which caused the taxi driver to trip and fall. There is no evidence to show that they made any repair work on the sidewalk which caused the defect. They insist that they are entitled under the law to be released as parties to this lawsuit.

The taxi driver opposed the motion for summary judgment asking that the case be dismissed against the tenants. He asserts that there is no evidence on the record that the defendants are only tenants. The tenants failed to attach a copy of their lease to their motion for summary judgment. They also did not attach a sworn affidavit of any person who had personal knowledge that tenants did not perform and repair work on the sidewalk which caused the defect.
The Supreme Court is then tasked to decide on whether or not the tenants are entitled to a summary judgment of dismissal of the case against them. The Court decided to deny the motion for summary judgment.

The Court noted that under the laws of procedure, the tenants had to show that they are entitled to a summary judgment. It is their burden to present preliminary evidence ( from the pleadings and documents identified during the deposition) that they cannot be held responsible for the negligence and that they did not create the defect as they never used the sidewalk or performed any repair work on it.

The Court noted that, as observed by the taxi driver, the tenants did forget to attach a copy of their lease agreement which would prove that they are mere tenants and not the owners of the premises and as such, they cannot held liable for the negligence. A Staten Island Personal Injury Lawyer said this inadvertence on the part of the counsel is fatal to their motion for summary judgment.

Also the Court noted that there is no affidavit attached to the tenants’ motion for summary judgment except the affidavit of the counsel for the tenants alleging that the tenants have not derived any special use from the sidewalk outside the premises nor have they performed any repair on the sidewalk which could have caused the defect.

The affidavit of the counsel for the tenants cannot be relied upon as admissible evidence to support a motion for summary judgment because the counsel for the tenants has no personal knowledge about any special use or repair work performed on the sidewalk. He is incompetent to swear to those facts because he has no personal knowledge of them. Only the tenants themselves or their employees and personnel can have personal knowledge of those facts.
The Court denied the tenants’ motion for summary judgment.

Perhaps you are a tenant of a building which abuts a sidewalk. Have you been sued for negligence like the tenant in this case? Did you know that as a mere tenant, you cannot be made liable for any negligence if you did not have special use of the sidewalk or if you did not create the defect in the sidewalk?

Being sued in court is often a stressful reality that you are unprepared for. Do not grope in the dark. You need to consult an attorney who can apprise you of your rights and obligations under the law as a tenant. At Stephen Bilkis & Associates, their legal team is well-trained to guide you in the intricacies and complexities of damage suits such as these and ensure that you can have your day in court. They can present evidence and argue your case to shift the liability to the owner as the law mandates and so mitigating your liability as a mere tenant. Call Stephen Bilkis & Associates today.

A lady was going down the stairs from the second floor of a building to the first floor lobby in a building located at 33-02 Skillman Avenue, Long Island City, New York. When she got to the last step, her left foot landed in a crack on the last step. Her foot got twisted in the crack; she lost her balance and fell. She brought this case for damages for the injuries she sustained as a result of her slip or trip and fall. She sued the owner of the building as well as the corporation that manages the building for the owner.

After the plaintiff was deposed, the building owner and building manager both filed a motion for summary judgment asking that the court dismiss the complaint at against them.

The Court first stated that a motion for summary judgment may only be granted when there are no more issues of material fact that need to be tried. It is the party who moved for summary judgment who has the burden of showing that he is entitled to the summary judgment as a matter of law because there is enough evidence to show that there is an absence of material facts that still need to be tried.

A New York Injury Lawyer said that after the person seeking the summary judgment proves that he is entitled to the judgment, the complaining party then bears the burden of proving that there are still material issues of fact that need to be tried by the court.

The Court also reiterated the rule that liability for a dangerous or defective condition on real property usually lies with the party who has ownership, occupancy, control or special use of the real property. When the suit involves a claim of negligence, the complaining party must show that there is a duty of care; and that the party being sued has breached the duty of care; and that the breach of the duty of care caused the damages to the complaining party.

A Brooklyn Personal Injury Lawyer said that first, the building manager and the building owner allege that the lady did not know what exactly caused her to trip and fall down the stairs. The Court perused the transcript of the deposition and it is clear from the answers of the lady that she knows that she stepped on a crack on the last step of the flight of stairs leading the second floor of the building down to the lobby. She testified that because she had stepped on the crack, her foot got twisted at the ankle; she lost her balance; and fell down the stairs. The Court then ruled that the lady had sufficiently alleged the cause of her trip and fall.

Second, the building manager and the building owner allege that the lady failed to testify that the defendant created the defect or dangerous condition or, that they had actual or constructive notice of it. The Court also rejected this argument. The Court ruled that the motion for summary judgment submitted by the building owner and building manager had no evidence to support their claim that they had no notice of the defect or dangerous condition. The Court suggested that building owner and the building manager should have adduced evidence as to when they last cleaned or inspected the last step of the stairs.

Third, the building manager and the building owner assert that the crack on which the lady tripped and fell is too trivial to be actionable. A Bronx Personal Injury Lawyer said that the Court also rejected this argument. The issue of a defect being too trivial to be actionable is a proper issue of fact that should be determined at trial. Also, the Court said that the building owner and the building manager should have presented evidence that the crack was indeed too trivial. But they presented no such evidence.

The Court ruled then that the motion for summary judgment should be denied and the case remanded for trial.

Perhaps you own or manage a piece of real property. Someone has sued you for damages because they tripped and fell on a defect or dangerous condition on your property. What should you do? What should you say? How can you protect yourself? Do not be like the building owner or the building manager in this case. They failed to present evidence on the motion they themselves filed. Know your legal options; be informed of your legal recourse. You need an skilled lawyer who specializes in cases such as these. Stephen Bilkis and Associates have licensed attorneys who can gather relevant evidence and present these intelligently before the court. Confer with a lawyer about your rights and your options: call Stephen Bilkis and Associates and ask for an appointment with an experienced lawyer who will assist you.

A lady member of a biking club in the town of Southampton went with her husband and seven other members of the biking club for their customary 100-mile weekend bike run early on the morning of July 27, 2002. She was an advanced intermediate bicyclist as were all the other eight bicyclists who were with her. The lady was the last biker in the single file of bikers. She was closely following a male friend of hers who was about three to five feet in front of her. Her husband was in front of her male friend and they were all riding between twelve to seventeen miles per hour on the right hand side of Deerfield Road in Southampton very near the corner of Woodthrush Lane. They were on the southbound lane.

According to a New York Injury Lawyer, she saw the first two bikers bunny hop on their bikes to avoid something on the road as did all the other bikers that followed. She noticed from afar that the concrete road had a black asphalt overlay on it in the middle which appeared like a shallow crater on the road. There were no traffic cones or signs on the road alerting passersby of the uneven state of the road. There were no shoulders abutting the road so they had to stay on the uneven road. She saw her husband bunny hop in front of her to avoid the ridge that was created by the uneven asphalt overlay on the road but her male friend who was biking just three to five feet away from her just suddenly tipped over and he fell on the road. It looked like the wheels of his bike got caught on a groove in the road and this caused his bike to trip and fall.

The lady cyclist had to avoid hitting her friend so she veered toward the middle of the road. She passed her fallen friend but she hit the uneven asphalt overlay in the middle of the road which was not flush with the rest of the roadway. She skidded, fell from her bike and slid underneath a car which was going northbound on the opposite direction that she was cycling on.

An NYC Personal Injury Lawyer said the lady lost consciousness and the other bikers who heard the screeching of the tires on the pavement stopped and looked back and saw the lady cyclist unconscious underneath the car. She was not hit by the car and her bike was not destroyed by the car, the lady and her bike slid under the car from its side, right between the front and back tires.

It was because of the personal injury she sustained during this incident that the lady cyclist filed this suit in damages against the town of Southampton, which, according to her, failed to maintain the road in good repair. She also sued the water authority which dug up the road, for not making sure that the asphalt overlay on their project was returned to its condition before they dug it up. She sued the water pipe company that laid the water main, and she also sued the construction company that repaired the road for not putting in traffic signs and traffic cones alerting her to the uneven condition of the road. Lastly, she sued the driver of the northbound car.

An NY Personal Injury Lawyer said there were other witnesses to the incident. A driver who was driving in the same direction as the bikers and who was behind them on the road testified on deposition that the driver of the car on the northbound lane opposite the bikers was doing about twenty-five to thirty miles per hour, well within the speed limit of 30 miles per hour on Deerfield Road. A lady who was having coffee on her front porch which had an unobstructed view of Deerfield Road also saw the incident and testified on deposition that she saw one cyclist fall on the road and the last cyclist tried to avoid the fallen cyclist. She also testified that she saw the driver of the northbound car slam on his brakes and tried to avoid the lady cyclist who veered into his lane.
The water pipe company sued the lady cyclist’s male friend. The water authority sued the lady cyclist’s male friend and her husband.

All the eight cyclists were deposed on discovery. The highway engineer of the town of Southampton was deposed along with the managers of the water authority, the pipe company and the road repair company. A driver who was behind the cyclists on the road was also deposed. A lady who was standing on her porch just off Deerfield Road was also deposed.
After the depositions, the water authority and the road repair company filed for a motion for summary judgment asking that the complaint against them be dismissed. The driver of the car under which the lady cyclist slid also moved for a summary judgment of dismissal. The lady cyclist’s male friend who fell on the road also filed a motion for summary judgment asking the complaint against him by the pipe laying company and the water authority be dismissed. The town and the water pipe laying company also asked for a summary judgment of dismissal of the complaints against them.

The Court granted the motion for summary judgment prayed for by the driver of the car under which the lady cyclist slid. The Court found that the driver of the northbound car was not negligent. There was sufficient evidence that he was not driving negligently prior to the accident. He could not have foreseen or anticipated that a cyclist would veer toward his lane. He was caught in an emergency situation and had no time to think. He did not create the emergency by his own negligence so he was under no duty to exercise the best judgment. Even if because of his erroneous judgment, injury was sustained by the lady biker. He could not have avoided the accident. He cannot be made liable for the lady biker’s injury.

The Court also noted that since all the bikers (including the lady cyclist’s male friend and the lady cyclist herself) were expert bikers. When they decided to embark on the sport of cycling on the open road, they knew and appreciated the risks involved in the nature of the sport. They are considered to have consented to the common risks of the sport including the risk that the surface of the roads they will bike on may not be in the most ideal condition.

But the Court finds that despite the inherent risks of the cycling sport, there is still an issue of fact that has to be determined, that is: whether the presence of grooves on the road or the absence of a top layer of asphalt that created a ridge on the road can be considered as a common and accepted risk in the sport of cycling. For this reason, the motion for summary judgment prayed for by the lady cyclist’s male friend cannot be granted.

As for the motion filed by the water authority and the road repair company, it is undisputed that the water authority entered into a contract with the road repair company to dig a long hole on the road to remove an old water main. The water authority also contracted with the water pipe laying company for it to remove an old water main and replace it with a new one. The water authority contracted that after the water pipe laying company had finished replacing the water main, it had to fill the hold with the soil it had removed from underneath the road. It was after this that the road repair company would lay asphalt on the hole so that it would be even and flush with the rest of the roadway. All this repair work was under authority, license and permission from the town of Southampton which owned Deerfield Road.

The depositions reveal that there are issues of fact that have yet to be tried. For instance, it is still not clear: if the road repair company had done its contractual job of completing the road repair; if the final asphalt overlay had already been laid; if the last and final asphalt layer was flush with the rest of the roadway; if the town or the water authority had properly inspected the road repair job. Because of these issues of fact, the motion for summary judgment prayed for by the road repair company and the water authority has to be denied.

The water pipe laying company’s motion for summary judgment however, should be granted because it has sufficiently submitted proof that it had done properly what it had contracted for; that it had finished removing the old water main and replaced it with a new one; that it had duly filled the hole with soil and aggregate which was its contractual obligation; that it had finished all the work that the contract called for it to do; that it finished its job three months prior to the accident.
Are you like the driver here who had the misfortune of figuring in an emergency situation that you had not anticipated and because of some error in judgment, someone was injured? How will you defend yourself? You need to know how the law protects motorists like yourself. You need to call Stephen Bilkis and Associates. Our legal team can help you present your case; he can present evidence on your behalf so that you need not pay damages if you were not negligent. Go to any of the conveniently located offices of Stephen Bilkis and Associates and confer with one of our lawyers who can assist in your defense.

At around 7:00 to 8:00 pm on September 11, 2002, a lady was walking on the sidewalk of Second Avenue to meet a friend at a yogurt shop. When she reached the part of the sidewalk halfway between East 46th and East 47th Streets, her foot turned and twisted to the left and then to the right. She lost her footing and her balance and she fell on the sidewalk.
That part of the sidewalk where she fell abuts a building named after a former Secretary-General of the United Nations Organization. The building was managed by a subsidiary of the corporation that owned the building. The woman sued the City of New York, the building owner and the building manager.

According to a New York Injury Lawyer, the City of New York, the building owner and the building manager all filed motions for summary judgment asking that the complaint be dismissed. The building owner and manager argued that the complaint should be dismissed because the lady could not say what caused her to trip and fall; that it had no duty to maintain the sidewalk as it derived no special use of the sidewalk; it did not create the defect of dangerous condition on the sidewalk. The City of New York argued that the defect that the lady alleged to have caused her accident is too trivial to be actionable; and even if it were not too trivial, the City never caused or created the defect and the defect was not proven to be the immediate cause of her trip and fall.

The Court looked at the deposition testimony and noted that the lady really testified that she had no idea what caused her to trip and fall. All she remembers is that she put her foot down, her foot wobbled and she lost her balance and fell. The lawyer cross-examining her on deposition asked her if she felt her foot hit something or if her foot got wedged in a crack or if she tripped on a raised sidewalk flag. But the lady consistently answered that she could not account for any reason why she would fall. She said that she never saw what caused her to fall before she fell and she did not go back to the sidewalk until a month after her accident and she saw that the sidewalk was still as cracked and uneven as on the day she had an accident but she could not pinpoint where she fell or what caused her to fall.

A Nassau County Personal Injury Lawyer, the Court noted that during her deposition identified cracks, raised and holes in the sidewalk from a photograph she had taken of the sidewalk. She announced that these were examples of the cracks that she saw on the sidewalk on the day she came back which was about one month after her accident. But, even when pressed and prodded, she was unable to pinpoint which crack or uneven sidewalk flag caused her to trip and fall.

The Court noted that the cracks may not be trivial as some of the cracks were deep, but without any evidence as to which of the many cracks or uneven sidewalk flags caused the lady’s trip and fall, all proceedings would be based on surmises and suppositions and not on facts. Therefore, the Court resolved to grant the motions for summary judgment and dismiss the complaint for failure of the complainant to identify the cause of her trip and fall.

A Queens Personal Injury Lawyer said that the lady in this case wasted precious time and money filing a lawsuit for damages for a trip and fall that she could not prove. Perhaps you have also tripped and fallen. You sustained injuries and you want to sue. Do you have a case? You need to meet with an attorney who can evaluate the facts of what happened to you to see if you do have a viable cause of action in court for damages. At Stephen Bilkis and Associates, they have well-trained lawyers who are experienced in building cases and gathering evidence you will need to pursue your claim. Do not sleep on your rights and do not bring a suit that is not well-researched or well-presented. Confer with Stephen Bilkis and Associates who can evaluate your case and inform you of your rights. Do not delay; contact Stephen Bilkis and Associates today at any of their offices conveniently located around the New York area.

The plaintiff has filed a complaint against the defendant for sustaining personal injury due to a trip and fall accident. The plaintiff was boarding a plane at the airport when she suddenly tripped and fell to the ground. The plaintiff cited the slippery and defective condition of the floor of the airplane as the cause of her fall. She asserted that such defective condition has been existing inside the plane.

According to her testimony, the accident happened near the entrance of the plane. The weather on the day of the accident was described as a little snowy. There was also a little rain during that time. The plaintiff recalled that her name was called while she was still inside the bathroom. She noted that her flight was earlier than the expected time. The plaintiff was actually the last person to go aboard.

The plaintiff further described the incident. While walking towards the plane, she was aware of her steps and looked at the metal steps and the plane. A NYC Personal Injury Lawyer said she plaintiff saw the flight attendant and the next thing she knew, she tripped and fell. She added that she was walking towards the plane in her usual normal pace. She was looking at the attendant when she tripped. The plaintiff was not using her phone nor looked at anything that will distract her from going to her destination.

In her statements, the plaintiff looked down on the floor to see what caused her fall. The plaintiff identified what she saw was moist and icy dirt. She said that she did not know where the substances came from.

An airport and airline employee testified for the defendant. According to the airport operations manager during the day of the incident, he was in-charge of manning the boarding gate agents and those who are working at the ticket counter. He was also responsible for handling complaints and other unusual issues that might arise while on the job. These issues would cover personal injuries and problems in the boarding and gate area.

A New York Injury Lawyer said that during the time of the accident, the witness was stationed on the terminal of the plaintiff’s assigned plane. According to his statement, there are delegated teams who are responsible for cleaning the interiors of the aircraft. Before the employee’s company can perform inspection, the airline uses a third party service to clean the planes. The witness cannot remember which group was responsible for cleaning the plane.

The witness further asserted that when there is snowfall, the airline employees will be the ones to check the airline door and the interior of the plane for any accumulation of snow. Employees are responsible for cleaning the gates if in case they find weather debris. On the day of the accident, the flight was supposed to be delayed because of the weather. The passengers who were already on board were asked to disembark because of the weather. The witness also saw the plaintiff running or doing a little brisk jogging towards the gate. He called out that she did not have to run since the plane was delayed.

According to a Nassau County Personal Injury Lawyer, another witness for the defendant was a flight stewardess present during the plaintiff’s flight. According to her testimony, she did not see a wet spot or slippery area by the gate of the plane. She said she was certain there was nothing there since all employees are responsible for removing any condition that may endanger passengers.
The court has determined that the ice wet dirt observed by the plaintiff after she fell might have come from the passengers who disembarked and went on again. It may have come from their shoes since they went back and in the plane. Therefore, the motion for summary judgment was granted and the case dismissed.

Any kind of lawsuit can disrupt your life. Avoid this by hiring skilled legal counsel. Contact Stephen Bilkis & Associates for an immediate meeting. The legal services of our legal team can assist you in your personal injury case.

A lady had just parked on the handicapped parking space outside a diner located at 2101 Middle Country Road in Centereach, New York. She was accompanied by her daughter. She was going to eat in the diner and was using the ramp that led from the parking lot, up the incline, to the handicapped ramp when she had a trip and fall on November 21, 2005. She failed to distinguish the lip on the cement curb that marked the edges of the handicapped ramp. The ramp was painted the same color as the surrounding curb that she had no visual cue. She did not see what caused her trip and fall; neither did her daughter who was beside her. But she sustained injury and so she sued the owner of the premises, the lessee who owned and operated the diner and lastly, she also sued the architectural firm that designed the diner and the handicapped ramp.

The architectural firm was the one who filed the motion for summary judgment asking for the dismissal of the complaint against it because although it admits that it had created the design and plan for the diner and also created and designed the handicapped ramp, it only created and designed the main handicapped ramp which ran from the curb up to the diner itself. It did not create or design the portion of the handicapped ramp that extended from the curb to the handicapped parking lot. It proffered evidence that under its contract for architectural services, it only designed the main ramp and the diner itself but it was the owner of the diner that had constructed the extension of the ramp so that it will flow smoothly until the handicapped parking space.

A NY Personal Injury Lawyer said that more importantly, the architectural firm does not own, occupy or control the building, the handicapped ramp, the curb or the handicapped parking space. It had finished its contractual obligation when it had designed the diner and the main ramp and when it had created the ramp and installed it. Beyond this, it had no control over that portion added by the diner owner to extend the ramp up to the handicapped parking space.

The architectural firm vigorously argued that it has never made special use of the premises where the lady’s accident occurred and it never created the defective condition that the lady asserts to have caused her trip and fall. Besides this, commented a New York Injury Lawyer, from the photographs that the architectural firm submitted, it appears that the defective condition complained of appears to be open and obvious. The ramp itself is not inherently dangerous.

And also from the lady’s testimony during her deposition, it does not appear that she was entirely sure that it was the ramp that caused her trip and fall. She did not know what caused her to trip and to fall. Her daughter, in her testimony during her deposition, could not say either what caused the lady’s trip and fall. The ramp could have been just the side of the accident but not the cause of it.

The lady submitted a deposition testimony by an engineering expert to prove that the elevation of the ramp was not according to the specifications of the building code or the law requiring access ramps for the physically handicapped.

A Queens Personal Injury Lawyer reported that the Court granted the motion for summary judgment prayed for by the architectural firm for the sole reason that the architectural firm did not own, possess or control the ramp where the accident occurred. The architectural firm has finished its contract with the diner and the contractual tie with them has long been severed by the fulfillment of its obligations.

The lady’s expert witness, the engineering expert may have proved that the ramp was not constructed according to the required specifications of ramps but it failed to prove that it was the architectural firm that had caused the ramp to be installed in violation of the statutory specifications.

Going up handicapped ramps may be simple enough for able-bodied individuals, but for the handicapped, given that they are handicapped, going up ramps is precarious. If a handicapped person has a trip and fall on a handicapped ramp, what can she do? What is her recourse under the law? She is more likely to be told that her handicap raised her risk of tripping and falling. How can she claim damages for injuries she sustained? Call Stephen Bilkis and Associates and meet with our legal counsel who can explain to you your rights. Our team is specifically trained to gather evidence and present them so that you can be compensated for your injury. Stephen Bilkis and Associates have legal counsel who can assist you. Call today and make an appointment for a free consultation.

A lady was walking outside a restaurant located at 1396 Third Avenue in Manhattan. The restaurant had a permit from the City of New York to set up café tables and chairs on the sidewalk. On the sidewalk there was a tree providing shade for the café tables. Sometime on March 21, 2008 as the lady was walking past the café, she stepped on a raised sidewalk flagstone and that caused her to trip and fall.

She sued the owner of the premises and the owner of the premises sued the tenant (the café) and the insurance company. After the deposition of the lady, the building manager and the café manager, the plaintiff filed a motion for a partial summary judgment against the building owner and seeks that the building owner be declared as liable under the Sidewalk Law of New York. The building owner filed a motion for summary judgment asking the court to dismiss the lady’s complaint against it. According to a New York Injury Lawyer, the insurance company asked the court for a summary judgment to dismiss the complaint of the building owner against it.

The Sidewalk Law of New York provides that the owner has the duty to maintain the sidewalk outside its premises in a reasonably safe condition and failing to do so, the building owner shall be liable for any injury. This duty to maintain the sidewalk in a reasonably safe condition cannot be delegated. The Court held that since the Sidewalk Law clearly puts the duty on the owner to maintain the sidewalk, and there is evidence that the building owner owns the property which abuts the sidewalk where the lady tripped and fell, the lady’s motion for partial summary judgment against the owner declaring him liable for her injury is granted.

A Manhattan Personal Injury Lawyer said that just as the Court declared that the building owner is liable for the injury sustained by the lady from the raised sidewalk flagstone outside the premises, the Court also declared that the building owner’s liability is not strict. Its liability will arise only if it is established by evidence that the building owner created the defect in the sidewalk or had constructive notice of the defect (the raised flagstone) but did not do anything to repair the defect. The Court also declared that the building owner can agree with the tenant of the premises to allocate the liability and even procure insurance for the benefit of the building owner and the tenant.

The building manager categorically testified during her testimony that she had never observed any raised flagstones around the premises or received complaints concerning any dangerous condition on the sidewalk. A Suffolk County Personal Injury Lawyer said she categorically stated that the café manager never informed her of any raised sidewalk flagstones and that she does not remember if any repairs were made on the sidewalk prior to the date that the lady tripped and fell on the sidewalk. During the same deposition, she also stated that she walked past the sidewalk on the way to her office in the higher floors of the building everyday for three years prior to the date of the lady’s accident.

But the testimony of the café manager totally contradicts the testimony of the building manager. He testified that in the spring of 2008, before he learned that a lady had tripped and fallen on the sidewalk, he painted the edge of the sidewalk yellow. He painted with similar yellow paint that area of the sidewalk that surrounded a tree to alert passersby and pedestrians of a possible tripping hazard. He testified that he had observed that the roots of the tree were causing some of the flagstones to be cracked and raised. He also testified that for fear that someone might get injured; he talked with the building manager herself and to clarify who was responsible for having the raised flagstone repaired. He testified further that the building manager gave him a printout of contact numbers of City offices which might be able to help him with the repair of the sidewalk.

The Court ruled that since there are discrepancies between the testimony of the café/restaurant manager and the building manager, these discrepancies raise issues of fact that must be tried by a court. The Court accordingly dismissed the motion for summary judgment filed by the building owner.

The lease contract entered into by and between building owner and the café/restaurant owner provided that they should both procure an insurance policy that will indemnify them for any claims for negligence that may be filed against them.

The insurance company moved for a summary dismissal of the complaint filed against it by the building owner and the café/restaurant owner. Because the insurance covered only bodily injuries sustained within the premises of the insured building. The insurance company reasoned that since the trip and fall occurred on the sidewalk and not in the building, it is relieved of its obligation to indemnify the building owner or the café.

The Court rejected this reasoning of the insurance company and it ruled that the sidewalk must be used to gain access and entry into the premises of the café. Without using the sidewalk, the patrons of the café will not be able to enter the café. The sidewalk then must be considered as part of the use of the premises of the café for the purpose of determining the liability of the building owner, the tenant and the insurance company.

The Court denied the building owner’s motion for summary judgment and his motion to dismiss the complaint. The insurance company’s motion to dismiss the complaint of the building owner against him is denied. All other issues of fact still remaining are remanded for trial.

Perhaps you have also tripped and fallen on a sidewalk and you are confused as to whom to sue for damages to compensate you for your injuries: know your rights and know your legal recourse. At Stephen Bilkis and Associates, they have ably trained lawyers who can listen to you and recommend the best course of action to secure compensation for your injuries.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the personal injury case of the plaintiff and requested the court to give summary judgment. The defendants claimed that the plaintiff was not successful in establishing the defendants’ alleged negligence. The plaintiff has opposed to the defendants’ motion for dismissal.

A New York Injury Lawyer explained that the plaintiff filed for a complaint against the defendants due to a trip and fall accident that happened in a local supermarket. According to the statements made by the plaintiff, she was in the supermarket when near the fresh vegetables aisle. The plaintiff was a regular customer of the supermarket. While shopping, she tripped and fell on the floor. Based on her testimony, the plaintiff identified the vegetable misting machine. The machine allegedly caused the fall because the water it sprayed had accumulated beyond the boundaries of the floor mat and spilled onto the floor. The plaintiff said that the trip and fall occurred because of the water coming from the vegetable misting machine.

The court was tasked to determine if summary judgment can be granted to the defendants, which are also the representatives for the supermarket. The defendants will have to submit evidence that would prove the plaintiff wrong. The plaintiff has the burden of proof in order to have a material case against the defendant.

When requested for summary judgment, the duty of the court is to find evidence supporting summary judgment and determine whether issues are presented is material or not. According to the defendants, they should be granted a summary judgment since the plaintiff cannot prove that the defendants were guilty of creating the condition or defect of the supermarket.

The defendant cited the plaintiff’s statement before the trial and learned that the plaintiff had already walked past that particular aisle where she tripped. When the plaintiff was walking near the vegetable section, she decided that she forgot something and walked back to the area of the accident. According to the statement of the plaintiff, she did not remember seeing the wet floor mat when she walked past. The plaintiff asserted that her foot got stuck on the wet mat and caused her to fall down.

The defendants had challenged the existence of prior notice and said that they did not receive any complaints for that particular vegetable machine causing the wetness. A witness for the defendant, who was also the produce manager, testified that there were no complaints against the floor mat in question. He asserted that the vegetable machine does not get wet. He also did not see the floor mats bunched up.

An NYC Personal Injury Lawyer explained that the defendant also opposes the plaintiff’s claim that the bunching mats happen regularly. They pointed out that the plaintiff herself had not made any complaints about the mat or the vegetable machine prior to her accident so it couldn’t be concluded that the bunching of mats was a recurring condition.

The defendants also argue that in order for the plaintiff to establish that there was negligence, the plaintiff must first find evidence of the existing defect. According to the provisions of the law, the defendant is liable for damages if it is proven that defendant created the condition of the defect or had received prior notice of the accident. If there is no evidence concerning the defendants’ creation of the dangerous condition, the existence of a written notice should be established by the plaintiff. A written notice has merit if the defect is visible and has existed for a reasonable amount of time for the supermarket employees to see it.

Based on the evidence presented and the testimonies of both parties, the court determined that a summary judgment should be denied. The court also found that the plaintiff has raised and proven a critical issue thus summary judgment was denied. An NY Personal Injury Lawyer said that both parties are scheduled to appear before trial court.

Personal injury lawsuits can be complicated. Consult a New York Trip and Fall Lawyer, by contacting Stephen Bilkis & Associates. The legal services of a skilled lawuer are all you need to give you the best chance possible in court.

Hiring our legal team will help you find a remedy for your case. If you are in need of skilled legal counsel, Stephen Bilkis & Associates is ready to assist you.

A Paducah man was put in jail after being involved in a two-car accident. He was charged with driving under the influence. The accident occurred in Kentucky, explains a New York Injury Lawyer.

The 55-year-old man was driving east on US 68. There was a woman passenger in the vehicle with him. The other vehicle was traveling on Kentucky Dam Road. The 60-year-old woman driver and her 45-year-old passenger were driving west on the road when they meant the other vehicle at the intersection.

Both drivers continued through the light and collided intersection. They both told police they had the right of way. When deputies responded to the accident, they noticed that the Paducah man was under the influence of a substance. He failed several sobriety tests in the field.

His passenger was seen pouring at least two alcohol beverages out her window. An off-duty deputy from the police department witnessed the passenger get rid of the alcohol. Also, the passenger was intoxicated and refused treatment. Police officers also found several beers in the man’s car. There is no tolerance in the United States for a person to drive a motor vehicle under the influence.

The man was charged with driving under the influence. He was taken to the McCracken Regional Jail. The other car’s driver and passenger were taken to a local hospital. It is unclear what condition they are in.

Do not wait until a drunk driver hits you to find legal counsel. If you have been in a car accident, contact Stephen Bilkis and Associates to help you through this traumatic event and give you the justice you deserve. We have offices located throughout New York City including Manhattan, Staten Island, the Bronx, Brooklyn and Queens. We also have locations in Suffolk County and Nassau County on Long Island, as well as Westchester County. Call us for a free consultation at 1-800-NY-NY-LAW.

A nurse filed a defamation lawsuit against his former employer, Health Central, after he was fired for allegedly looking in a celebrity's medical files. He is asking for more than $400,000 in damages and requesting the hospital reinstate him.

He also requested that the hospital write a letter detailing why he was fired to its employees, a New York Injury Lawyer commented. The nurse said he was fired because of circumstantial evidence. He could lose his license.

The celebrity stayed at the facility after a November 2009 car crash outside of his home. He was at the hospital for several hours. He used the aliases Ronald Williams and Ernest Smith.

The nurse accuses Health Central of hospital defamation, conspiracy to defame, harm his reputation, and violate polygraph procedures. The hospital fired him for looking into the man's medical records three times over a 10-minute period.

However, the nurse said he left the terminal and someone else logged in to look at the file. The nurse worked at the hospital a decade before was fired.

According to the lawsuit, on Dec. 4, 2008, two hospital administrators called the nurse in and showed him the celebrity's files. They accused him of using the terminal to look at patient files. He denied the allegations and asked for a polygraph test to prove his innocence.

On Dec. 8, 2009, he took a 45-minute polygraph test at his home. The results of the test were not included in the lawsuit. It is unclear if the nurse had access to the test results. Dec. 16, 2009, the hospital decided to fire the nurse.

If you or a loved one has been falsely accused and has been terminated from their employment, contact Stephen Bilkis and Associates. Whether you have been injured in a car accident, or have a workers' compensation claim, our office help you get back on your feet and get the matter figured out.

These twins have had a rough life and for one that life has unexpectedly ended, the other scarred by chemical burns is still hospitalized. Twins, a boy and girl, who were placed in a foster home at the age of two suffered at the hands of their adoptive parents as evidenced by the death of the young girl and the chemical burns found the young boy. How could this young pair have had so much bad luck, questions one New York Injury Lawyer?

The ten year old twins were placed into foster care at such a young age because the mother and father had lost parental rights at separate times. The mother lost her rights very early on for alleged prostitution, abuse, and drug use. She was said to have used cocaine and opium. The Father similarly lost his rights because he had a criminal past that included the molestation of a child. Though the father says he did everything that was ask of him by the state, the state removed his children anyway. This is not unusual in such cases and that the foster home was then allowed to adopt the twins. The twins did have relatives at the time that were willing to raise the children, but the twins were instead turned over to the foster home.
Since that time the young girl has been found dead, wrapped in a plastic bag inside of a pest control truck. The girl’s adoptive father is being held as a suspect in the girl’s death. The brother, her twin, was found inside of a truck seizing and covered in chemical burns. The biological father, though he has not been allowed contact with his children since a very young age, wishes to see his son. He wishes to express his love and hopes his son will be placed with relatives so that he may begin healing following his release from the hospital.

The foster parents were observed by social services as all foster homes are supposed to be observed and though initially reports documented a clean, safe environment, other reports paint a much different story. Reports later released to a Staten Island Personal Injury Lawyer showed several incidents in which teachers had complained of the girl being dirty, bruised, and hungry. Reports from the Division of Family Services also showed that though the twins’ mother was once listed as deceased, her whereabouts were also listed as unknown.

The biological father states that he just wants to be a part of his son’s life. He states that the past does not matter. This fisherman by trade lives in a small apartment and hopes that his relatives will take custody and care of his son. He simply wants to be with his son during this healing process. No one has yet determined what will happen with the boy or whether his biological father will be able to see him, though it is certain that the child will not be returned to the adoptive family who has also lost custody of their other two adopted children.

This child needs legal counsel to fight for his cause. He, along with anyone who has suffered unnecessarily at the hands of another can contact Stephen Bilkis and Associates to receive the much needed help, support, and legal advice that is needed. Whether you have suffered from a broken bone, a back injury, or loss of sight, it is important to speak with us to ensure that your rights are protected and that you receive the compensation you deserve.

Passing Emails between and among colleagues on occasion is a common practice in this day of technological advancement. Almost every member of society has an email address and though many emails are sent on company time and are not always of a business nature. The question arises of whether this is a legal matter, reports one New York Injury Lawyer. Do employers have the right to censor email if it is on company time? Do all employees get censored at the same time or in the same manner?

These questions are answered in a case based in Spotsylvania County. A former teacher, parent volunteer, and PTA leader turned school board member has been censored due to her use of company email to speak with friends and colleagues about information unrelated to work. It is also alleged that the board member failed to report improper conduct between a teacher and administrator. The nature of the ‘improper conduct’ is not clearly defined. However this board member was censored because she did not report the conduct, used email for personal conversations, and opened the School Board up for legal action through her lack of reporting.

The improper conduct, though not clearly defined, is said to be about sexual misconduct or harassment between an administrator and teacher. The censured board member states that she was never trained on how to identify or handle such incidents and if she had been would have reported immediately, especially in light of the knowledge that a lawsuit could occur. The board member was censored for this report that did not occur by fellow board members in a secret meeting. Sources said that the meeting reasoning and the fact that it was held behind closed doors leaves little information about how issues were actually handled. The censored member admits that she may have messed up and that company email was probably not the best choice to communicate with friends and colleagues, but that she is not the only one that has ever done so and she had previous to this censorship switched to a personal email.

Though this former teacher has been censored though the Education Board she has not failed to speak with news sources.

If you or a family member finds yourself censored or injured because of medical malpractice, a construction accident, or workers' compensation issue, contact legal counsel. Stephen Bilkis and Associates can help settle legal matters and fight for personal rights when a physical, emotional, or any type of injury has occurred

A pedestrian was fatally hit by a drunken driver on Route 35 earlier in the month. One New York Injury Lawyer says a strong case exists as the driver left the scene, though he later returned and stated that a pedestrian had been hit.

At around 1:35 A.M. the California Highway Patrol and Pacifica police department responded to a call. The report stated that someone called in to report a possibly deceased pedestrian that had been hit on the Sharp Park Road and Route 35. A New York Injury Lawyer reflects on the fact that a resident of Leopoldo Tobilla showed up shortly after the police to say he was driving and hit the pedestrian. The resident was immediately arrested and was found to be intoxicated. His DUI arrest was for DUI resulting in fatal injury and leaving the scene of an accident.

It will be interesting to see how the charges will play out since the man seemingly turned himself in. The arrested is being held at San Mateo County jail in Redwood City. He is currently charged with vehicular manslaughter, leaving the scene of a vehicle collision resulting in fatal injury, and driving while intoxicated. The suspect was arrested on scene after he returned explaining to officers that he had hit someone walking on the roadway. Any witnesses to the accident are asked to contact the local police to explain what happened. Though the pedestrian was declared dead on the scene it has not been released whether death was immediate upon impact. The accused is a fifty seven year old male and the level of his intoxication has not been released to news sources.

Information about where the suspect had been, what he had been drinking, his alcohol levels, and why he left or returned has not been released. It can be assumed that the driver felt some remorse in order to return to the scene and turn himself into the police. The information is not clear on how prosecutors are choosing to proceed in this case or whether all charges will be pursued.

If you or a loved one are involved in an accident involving a vehicle or a drunken driver, that has resulted in injury, or even wrongful death, contact Stephen Bilkis and Associates immediately. Only the best should represent you in court so that your legal needs are met, and you receive the compensation you deserve.

A woman who settled her harassment suit against a local town president will receive $75,000 in the settlement. According to online federal court records, the settlement was negotiated on Dec. 16, 2010.

According to a New York Injury Lawyer, the lawsuit alleged that the former president inappropriately touched and made sexual comments to her. The woman was an assistant for the town's administrator. Further, her lawsuit alleged that the Board and the president retaliated against her. She was fired from her job in December 2008. The lawsuit was filed July 6, 2010.

In the lawsuit, the woman stated that on several occasions the man called her after her work hours at home. He wanted to discuss personal matters going on in his life. He also made it aware that he expected her to travel with him during personal errands.

The president denied the allegations she made against him in her lawsuit on several occasions. He did not run for reelection. He would have been in his second term. The lawsuit also states that even though the woman complained about the harassment, the Village Board and her boss did not do anything to stop it. The lawsuit also alleged that she was fired for viewing confidential information, but when she pursued the matter, she could not get information on what she looked at. She said she was never informed of doing anything wrong until she was fired, her lawsuit stated.

The $75,000 settlement for the woman is reimbursement for back pay and compensatory damages she suffered when fired. The settlement will also cover legal fees for her attorney.

If you have been injured because of the negligence of another, including medical malpractice, premises liability, or have a workers' compensation claim, speak to Stephen Bilkis and Associates for advice and a free consultation. You deserve to be compensated for your injuries.

Stand up comic and television personality Jerry Seinfeld has recently had to see his wife sued on charges of copyright infringement, says a New York Personal Injury Lawyer. Mrs. Seinfeld, who recently published a book entitled, “The Sneaky Chef,” is fighting to keep the case against her from being reinstated.

The book, which is a witty cookbook filled with recipes that are designed to satisfy younger children, is said to have stolen recipes from another book which has very similar recipes. Mrs. Seinfeld’s attorney has defended his client by showcasing the differences between the two books, namely that Mrs. Seinfeld’s book is far more humorous and decidedly lighter fare, whereas the other cookbook is far more serious and is even somewhat lecture prone, making it very different from “The Sneaky Chef.” The style and approach of the two books should outweigh the exact ingredients in a few of the recipes.

The judge hearing the case was making a few jokes of his own, specifically addressing the supposedly innovative nature of some of the recipes. He mentioned that it seemed the idea of making a healthy puree and then hiding it in other recipes may not be so creative after all. No word as of yet as to the outcome of the case, but it appears at present that Mrs. Seinfeld is safe.

If you have case dealing with copyright infringement, or have been injured because of the negligence of another such as in a product liability, or premises liability incident, speak to Stephen Bilkis and Associates for guidance. We will provide you with sound legal guidance and a free consultation. We have offices throughout New York City, including locations in Manhattan, Staten Island, the Bronx, Brooklyn and Queens. We also have offices in Nassau County and Suffolk County on Long Island, as well as Westchester County. Call us today for an appointment at 1-800-NY-NY-LAW.

Ohio announced that it would start using pentobarbital for executions. Ohio is not the only state making the switch from using thiopental. Oklahoma is also using the drug for executions, a New York Injury Lawyer reported.

Ohio usually uses 5 grams of thiopental but they will be using 5 grams of pentobarbital instead. The amount is consisted a large doses. They will only need to use a single dose of the drug.

Pentobarbital is often used in assisted suicides and to induce surgical comas. Many vets also use the drug to put an animal to sleep.

The manufacture for thiopental announced on Friday that it would stop production of the drug. Hospira is the company. The drug is usually made in Italy and recently the government there has prevented the duplication of the drug if the manufacture cannot control what the drug is used for.

Defense lawyer have stated that the use of the drug for executions are unproven and too risky. So far, Oklahoma has used the drug three times for executions, a New York Injury Lawyer.

The thiopental maker, Lundbeck, Inc. is opposed to the use of the drug for executions. They state that it was designed for medical advances only. They said, “Lundbeck is dedicated to saving people’s lives. Clearly, use of [pentobarbital] to carry out the death penalty . . . falls outside its intended use.”

If you have been injured by the negligent actions of another, including by use of a defective product, or because of medical malpractice, speak to our legal team right away. At Stephen Bilkis and Associates, we will provide you with legal guidance and a free consultation. You may be entitled to compensation for your injuries including medical expenses, lost income and for pain and suffering. Call us today for a free consulation at 1-800-NY-NY-LAW.

Research into medical practices for Guantanamo detainees calls giving every detainee mefloquine, anti-malaria treatment, is malpractice. Medical experts with Seton Hall University studied the Defense Department’s policy on giving detainees large doses of the anti-malaria drug, a New York Injury Lawyer stated.

When every detainee is processed into the prison, they are administered 1,250 mg of mefloquine in two doses over a 12-hour period. Mefloquine is usually given as a lost restore to individuals who are known to have malaria. The prison does not conduct a blood test before giving the drug.

Mefloquine is known to have severe side effects including “anxiety, paranoia, hallucinations, aggression, psychotic behavior, mood changes, depression, memory impairment, convulsions, loss of coordination, suicidal ideation, and possibly suicide, particularly in patients with a history of mental illness,” the study stated.

A statement from a Defense Department representative stated that there have been only three cases of detainees coming to the facility with malaria symptoms. The facility has been in use since 2001. There are more than 700 prisoners at the facility.

Malaria is an extremely deadly disease that can kill in 48 hours. According to World Health Organization, around 1 million people died of malaria every year. The top three locations with high malaria dead rates are Africa, Southeast Asia, and the South Pacific. Cuba has no recorded malaria threats. Many the detainees are caught in these areas.

If you or one of your loved ones is being given unneeded prescriptions, or has been the victim of medical malpractice, call Stephen Bilkis and Associates to take on their case. Our office can help you through your legal proceedings, and ensure that your rights are protected. Come in for a free consultation today.

A 19-year old boy was involved in a hit-and-run car accident while crossing the street. The man that hit him fled the scene but later called the police to report the incident. Recently, a grand jury charged him with failing to help the boy and for fleeing a crime scene. The boy has sustained major injuries and will require many months of rehabilitation in order to resume his life in as normal a way as possible.

The boy has trouble walking, talking and doing simple things that other people take for granted like holding a spoon when eating, showering or dressing. A spokesperson for the boy's family has said that the boy has good days and bad days. The family has been very supportive and is hopeful that the boy will make a full recovery. The boy played sports in high school which may have reduced his risk of permanent injury.

The man who hit the boy and fled the scene will now face criminal charges in court. The family of the boy may sue the man in civil court to help pay medical expenses and rehabilitation costs. According to a New York Injury Lawyer, donations are also being accepted at the local bank in the town where the accident happened. Even though the boy has been released from the hospital, he must go to rehabilitation for at least three hours a day in order to recover from his injuries. This is not only costly, but also taxing on the boy because he has a limited amount of energy.

No timeline has been set for the boy's recovery. Rehabilitation may take some time and the family of the boy is being patient and asking for those in the community to pray for him. As an athlete, the boy understands that he must complete a little each day in order to grow stronger. He also realizes that over time, he will begin to see results such as being able to speak, walk without the aid of a walker or can, and be able to perform everyday acts without assistance from family or physical therapists.

Call Stephen Bilkis and Associates to learn more about your rights if you've been involved in a car accident. Our office understands your needs and can help you by providing advice and counsel, as well as a free consultation.

Citigroup is now partially owned by the federal government, like a few others. It also has something in common with the big Wall Street player, Goldman Sachs – lawsuits involving gender discrimination, a New York Injury Lawyer reports.

Six women are alleging that Citigroup is keeping women from equal access to pay, promotions, and work. Five of the plaintiffs lost their jobs when Citi suffered through major financial crisis in November 2008. These layoffs were one on of the primary reasons for the suit, which states that the women were fired by Citi while less-qualified men were kept on staff.

The suit also states that the senior leadership has 39 men and only five women. It also says the executive committee is made up of 19 men. There is a sixth plaintiff in the suit who still works at the bank, sources tell a NYC Personal Injury Lawyer. Both the Citi suit and the Goldman suit are seeking class-action status. The Citi suit was filed in mid-September.

Unfair treatment in the workplace is not only wrong, it’s against the law. There’s no reason to stand for it when there is a New York Injury Lawyer who can hold those responsible to account for their actions. Sometimes there is no avoiding court, and when the moment comes, it’s important to have a good representative, an advocate who can articulate just what went wrong and what can be done to rectify things.

If you or a loved one has been harmed through the actions of another, Stephen Bilkis is ready to help. We will provide you with legal guidance and a free consultation. Come into any of our conveniently locations including Manhattan, Queens, the Bronx, Brooklyn, and Staten Island. We also have locations in Suffolk County or Nassau County on Long Island, as well as Westchester County. Call today to schedule your appointment at 1-800-NY-NY-LAW.

A former judge for the city of Dallas, Texas may file a lawsuit against the city claiming she was wrongfully terminated after she turned down the sexual advances made by a fellow judge. The city council had decided not to renew her contract with the city and let her go last June, claims a New York Injury Lawyer. According to those on the council, the complaints filed against the other judge were unfounded. Even though most colleagues did not come to the former judge's defense, the current mayor of Dallas said that he thinks the judge was let go because she filed a sexual harassment complaint.

According to a Manhattan Personal Injury Lawyer, the former judge claims that when she dismissed the other judge's sexual advances, he made it very difficult for her to complete job tasks. He gave her more work than she could handle, refused to purchase a new computer for her office and encouraged the city council to release her from service and not renew her contract. The other judge denies all of these allegations.

At least one female co-worker may be called to the witness stand to recall comments made to the former judge that could be considered sexual harassment, alleges a New York Injury Lawyer. Depending on the number of other witnesses, the former judge may or may not have a solid case. Proving sexual harassment at the workplace can be difficult, especially without concrete evidence such as email correspondence, voice mail messages or multiple witnesses.
It is unclear whether the former judge with go through with her threat to sue the city. Depending on her personal circumstances, it may not be worth putting her family through the embarrassment of a court trial. If she files a lawsuit, the former judge says she will ask for back-pay, front-pay and payment for the loss of fringe benefits. It is unknown at this time if she will file a civil suit against the judge that allegedly harassed her.

It is unknown at this time if the former judge has found a new job or if she is still looking for an appropriate position within the Texas legal system.

Meet with an experiened legal counsel who can explain your rights before and during all court proceedings. Councel will help you prepare your case and help you collect any monies owned to you if you've been seriously injured in an accident.

Whether you have a workers compensation claim, have had a car accident, or have been the victim of a construction accident, contact Stephen Bilkis and Associates for advice and a free consultation. We will answer all your questions, and ensure that your rights are protected throughout the legal process.

We have offices throughout New York City for your convenience, including locations in Manhattan, Staten Island, Queens, the Bronx and Brooklyn. We also have locations in Westchester County, and Nassau County and Suffolk County on Long Island. Call us today for an appointment at 1-800-NY-LAW.

As the radiation crisis in Japan continues, the first traces of radiation were detected on the U.S. west coast, which has many people scrambling to purchase the vitamin supplement called Potassium Iodide, sources told a New York Injury Lawyer. Potassium Iodide is often given to people who have been, or will be, exposed to radiation due to it saturating the thyroid gland with iodine. This thyroid saturation repels any radioactive iodine the person may inhale or ingest.

Whether there is any cause for alarm, as is often the case, depends on whom you are speaking with at any given moment. The official government statements reflect that there is no cause for concern, which is also being repeated by many in the scientific community as well. However, a NY Personal Injury Lawyer is also learning that there are also many in scientific circles who are as concerned as many of the population that is currently seeking to purchase the vitamin.

Regardless of whom you believe, stores that carry vitamin supplements have been inundated with requests for Potassium Iodide, and there have been many reports to New York Injury Lawyers of customers paying for the vitamin in advance. The scarcity of the vitamin supplement has not been confined to stores in the local communities. The companies that either manufacture the KI, its chemical symbol, and/or sell it on their websites are completely sold out; sources inform New York Injury Lawyers. At least one of them has reportedly stopped taking orders altogether.

While at first it may appear that only individuals are seeking Potassium Iodide, there are companies that are also seeking to purchase it. Although there are a few that are fairly regular customers, such as states and companies that have people who live within a 10-mile radius of a nuclear facility, there are also some companies who have employees in Japan that they are seeking to supply with the vitamin.

It should be noted that those manufacturers whose inventories of Potassium Iodide have been depleted, have ramped up production and are expecting to increase its availability within the coming weeks.

If you or a loved one have been injured on the job, you may not be aware of the legal options you may have available. Whether you have been involved in a construction accident, a slip and fall or have suffered a crane injury, speak to Stephen Bilkis and Associates for guidance. Our legal team has the answers and can assist you or your loved one arrive at the best solution that is possible that the law allows.

An 18-year old high school student was struck by a car while walking in a middle school crosswalk. The driver fled the scene after the incident, reported a New York Injury Lawyer. The girl was not seriously injured, but was taken to a local hospital for the treatment of minor injuries. Witnesses say the car, driven by an older woman, drove off after hitting the girl. Police are currently looking for vehicle and the driver.

Charges may be pending for the driver who struck the student and left the scene. Police are asking those in the community with any information to step forward. The woman was driving red sedan. She had a dog with her in the passenger seat. The woman should have stopped after realizing she struck the girl and waited for police.

The woman was leaving the middle school parking lot when the accident occurred. Instead of yielding to make sure the crosswalk was empty, the woman turned her vehicle and hit the girl. Luckily, the girl was not seriously hurt. Even when walking in crosswalks pedestrians need to be cautious as some drivers do not pay attention when making turns out of driveways.

It is unknown if the woman was under the influence of drugs or alcohol at the time of the accident or if she simply did not see the girl as she turned into the crosswalk. It is unclear if the woman will have to surrender her license or attend driver safety classes after she is found. She may have to pay a fine or go on probation for injuring another person and fleeing a crime scene. Unfortunately, there is little evidence to go on other than a vague description of the woman and her vehicle, claims a Nassau County Personal Injury Lawyer.

Even though the girl has been released from the hospital, little is known about her condition. It has been assumed that her injuries were not severe and that she is able to attend school and go about her usual schedule. Had her injuries been more serious, she may have needed additional medical care.

Contact Stephen Bilkis and Associates if you've been injured at work, home or at a public place. Whether you have suffered a head injury, broken bone or back injury, we can help. Our legal team will explain your rights and inform you of your legal options.

We have offices throughout New York City to serve you, including locations in Manhattan, Queens, the Bronx, Staten Island and Brooklyn. We also have locations in Nassau County and Suffolk County on Long Island, as well as Westchester County. Call us today for a free consultation at 1-800-NY-NY-LAW.

As New York Governor Cuomo proposes legislation that seeks to limit pain and suffering awards to $250,000 in cases involving medical malpractice, there is at least one woman who disagrees with his proposal. This mom also happens to be a practicing physician, which gives her some rather unique perspectives that can only be understood by someone with experience from both sides of the issue. In this instance, the practicing doctor is also the mother of a 13-year old boy who is the victim of medical malpractice.

While her son’s award was awarded several years ago and is not subject to the governor’s proposed cap, she is aware of the day-to-day responsibilities in caring for someone who has been injured due to medical malpractice. A New York Injury Lawyer learned that her son must be attended full-time, as he is unable to walk or talk. His cerebral palsy was caused by medical negligence, which leaves the youth confined to a wheelchair and unable to go though any of the daily things that many people take for granted, such as eating, getting dressed, bathing, and even going to the toilet. Her son also needs a motorized wheelchair and a van with wheelchair access in order to travel anywhere.

Dr. Mom is also at least one physician who takes her responsibility seriously and recognizes there are times when the human factor becomes involved that specifies that we all make mistakes. As was also reported to a Nassau County Personal Injury Lawyer, that she and other physicians, must “live with the reality” that they may cause someone irreparable harm and that they will be sued. While the thought of a potential lawsuit sounds extremely unpleasant to her, her thoughts are also with the potential victim of any such errors. She is all too aware of this by her own experience.

Although the state budget must be brought into line with economic realities, at least one of the things that tend to be overlooked is the realities that victims of medical malpractice must endure daily and for the rest of their lives. They too face certain economic hardships and uncertain futures, and many must do so without the ability to seek gainful employment and must rely on the compassion of others just to survive each day.

The budget debate will likely continue, at least for a short time. All the while people like Dr. Mom will continue to raise their children who have been placed in harm’s way due to the negligence of someone else. When asked as to whether an award of $250,000 would have been sufficient to care for her son for the rest of his life, her reply was a simple, “Absolutely no way.”

The pre-preliminary hearing for five current and former priests and other church officials took place on March 14 in Philadelphia, learned a New York Injury Lawyer. While the hearing was supposed to have been a relatively simple matter, before the end of the hearing the judge was expressing her anger toward one of the defendants.

The hearing was the first hearing for the accused since they were all indicted by the grand jury. They each stand accused of sexually abusing children and endangering minors. The court heard arguments from prosecutors and defense attorneys, which lasted for about 75-minutes. While many of those arguments became heated at times, and left the judge exasperated, one particular incident led the presiding judge to address one of the defendants directly.

A Suffolk Personal Injury Lawyer was told that during the course of the grand jury hearing, one of the priests had approached the judge in tears because he could not afford an attorney. The judge then appointed an attorney for him. When he arrived at this hearing, he had paid for his own attorney to represent him. Upon learning of this, the judge required the defendant to rise to his feet and explain his actions. She further expressed to the former priest that he had lied to her. His attorney stated that his client paid for counsel by means of a loan obtained from his brother. He also stated that his client did not understand the question and had misspoken. The judge did not believe it. The priest in question stands accused of the rape of a 14-year old boy.

One of the arguments the defense attorneys are presenting steadfastly is that the authorities that filed the charges initially did not have the jurisdiction to do so, which indicates that the grand jury indictment should be dismissed. The alleged crimes reportedly committed in two other counties. Prosecutors responded by filing conspiracy charges against the priest.

This case is also the first time that charges have been filed against a ranking church official for his role in covering up the alleged crimes and by placing the priests in positions that would provide easy access to potential victims. The former archdiocese faces a felony endangerment charge.

Have you been injured due to no fault of your own regardless of where it occurred? Before you give up and sign anything that an insurance company’s representative has given you to sign, contact a Stephen Bilkis and Associates. Whether you have been injured in a car accident, a construction accident, or a trip and fall accident, will speak for you and preserve the rights that others would have you sign away.

A New York Product Liability Lawyer recently reviewed California Superior Court Case # 30 and revealed that CPAC, a non-profit law clinic, is determined to help both the elderly and the young struggling families who have been affected by bank fraud and are facing homelessness.

"CPAC is trying to accomplish what our government hasn’t. The clinic is fighting a display of alleged bank fraud and lender abuse that was written about in the California Superior Court documents,” he said.

In a recent speech at the Academy Awards, award winner Charles Fergusen said, "Forgive me, I must start by pointing out that three years after our horrific financial crisis caused by massive fraud, not a single financial executive has gone to jail, and that's wrong."

The New York Injury Lawyer outlined law SB94 in California stating that it basically prohibits private sector professionals, including the honest and effective ones from attempting to help the American consumer. "SB 94 is an absolute prohibition of such prepaid work," he said.

CPAC is currently representing more than 240 individuals in civil lawsuits against banks. This is the first time these types of lawsuits have been placed against lenders due to the high costs of defending themselves against the banks.

"What CPAC Non Profit Law Clinic has done is what we would expect our government to have already done; file a 'Defective Product Liability Lawsuit' against the mortgage industry on behalf of the American people” he explained.

Countless examples of families filing this suit were sited including the story a woman and her four-year-old son.

"This young woman was told by her bank that she was getting a loan modification. According to court documents she states that she did everything her lender requested, for almost a year. Then her lender told her that her loan modification was not approved and her house was instead going to auction." A NYC Personal Lawyer and added that this story is all too typical for man Americans who face this same problem.

"The more people who come forward with their stories, the more these people can really make a difference,” he concluded.

Were you given false promises when you purchased your home? If you or a family member had to foreclose on your home because you were misled, Stephen Bilkis and Associates can help. Whether you have a contractual dispute, or have been the victim of a product liability accident, we are here to provide you with the answers you need and a free consultation.

We have offices to serve you throughout New York City, including locations in Manhattan, the Bronx, Queens, Staten Island and Brooklyn. We also have locations in Nassau County and Suffolk County on Long Island, as well as Westchester County.

New Yok Injury Lawyers described today how the U.S. Supreme Court was faced with a decision regarding a person’s right to sue a vaccine manufacturer for design defects.

The NCVIA of 1986 was passed to protect and held responsible for patients who incur injuries or side effects from vaccinations due to defects in design or improper administering of the vaccine. It was enacted to create a no-fault compensation program in exchange for the tort system for resolving vaccine injury claims and suits.

In 1995, a family tried to file a claim regarding their daughter, who allegedly became disabled after her vaccination. After filing their initial claim, they were denied compensation so the case was removed to the U.S. Court of Appeals. The case was still denied and sighted the NCVIA as the reason.

The Supreme Court concurred with the Third Circuit decision based on an analysis of the NCVIA preemption provision. And added that it reads: “No vaccine manufacturer shall be liable in a civil action for damages arising from a vaccine-related injury or death associated with the administration of a vaccine after October 1, 1998, if the injury or death resulted from side effects that were unavoidable even though the vaccine was properly prepared and was accompanied by proper directions and warnings.”

The Supreme Court carefully came to their decision based on these three common grounds for liability under product liability law ― defective manufacture, inadequate directions or warnings, and defective design. The Court also pointed out that the preemption provision explicitly explains the manufacturing process (“properly prepared”) and “directions and warnings,” yet it does not mention design defects. This omission “strongly suggests” that design defects are not a basis for liability.

He explained that the Court called these types of defects unavoidable in a case where adequate warnings were rendered and the vaccine was administered properly, and with the right dose. Further the court concluded that the NCVIA provides sufficient protection for patience with its mandated vaccination research and testing.

If you have been injured due to a defective product, or have experienced an injury due to the negligence of another, contact Stephen Bilkis and Associates for guidance. We will provide you with a free consultation, so call us today.

Recent reports from a New York City Injury Lawyer reveal lawmakers from the state of Vermont have considered asking the Shumlin administration in Vermont to come up with recommendations for correcting the medical malpractice system in the state with the main concern being they would like to lower the costs of healthcare in the state.

Medical malpractice investigations are very common. In debates over healthcare reform at both state and federal levels, the spotlight is put on the doctors and the medicine they are claimed to use to prevent lawsuits.

Members of the House Health Committee almost finished their completion of the work they have done on a bill that is supposed to put Vermont in the direction of single payer health care. They recently got a visit from the chairman of the Judiciary Committee with a suggestion calling for the medical malpractice study.

Healthcare has been a national issue for several years now as members of both national political parties have debated on whether healthcare reform is even possible, and if so they have to figure out the best way to do it. It has been in the news almost every day and much of the country has been up in arms regarding this issue. It has struck cords in everyone from the very rich who don’t want to pay more taxes to the middle class who can’t afford the rising costs in addition to almost everything else these days. Because the cost of healthcare is going up, the costs of prescription drugs have gone up considerably as well, mainly for senior citizens who need more drugs and are more likely to be on a fixed income.

One of the issues the study would spend a significant amount of time addressing is the cost of defensive medicine and one of the main points is to find a way to lower the costs of medicine while at the same time protecting patients.

Continue reading " Vermont House Wants a Study on Medical Malpractice " »

According to initial reports from a New York Injury Lawyer, a man from Ventura was arrested late Thursday night thought to be drunk driving after driving the wrong way on Highway 101.

The man, as well as two others, were harmed in the crash. The man was arrested and given a sobriety test, which he apparently failed. It is believed that the man has previous drunk driving arrests on his record.

A Nassau County Personal Injury Lawyer close to the case was led to believe that the man was arrested on suspicion of felony DUI as well as driving with an expired license. He was then allowed to leave for treatment of a broken bone and facial fractures at Santa Barbra Cottage Hospital, according to reports from the CHP.

Reports were received by the CHP somewhere between 8 and 9 that Wednesday night that a vehicle was driving the wrong way on northbound 101 close to Casitas Pass Road and then there was also an accident involving four to five other cars north of Bailard Avenue. An early investigation found that the driver had entered the freeway going to the wrong way at Casitas Pass Road, it one car on the side before hitting two others and careened into the center median and turned over multiple times, reports the CHP.

The driver was extricated by faculty from the Carpinteria Fire Department. One of the passengers in his car suffered cuts and bruised and was taking to Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital as well. The passenger was treated and immediately released after questioning.

One of the drivers of one of the vehicles that was hit, a 31year old woman of Santa Barbara, was also extricated and rushed to Cottage Hospital for a broken leg as well as a broken hip, says the CHP. As far as anyone knows, the other people involved in the wreck are unharmed at this time.

Northbound 101 was closed for approximately three hours after the investigation for cleanup and further investigation into the cause of the accident.

Continue reading " DUI Caused Wrong Way Crash " »

A second grade boy was injured at his Louisville elementary school, reports a New York Injury Lawyer. The boy was found in the bathroom at his school last week, but as of right now, the police have no answers as to what caused his injuries.

The boy was found in a bathroom stall in the bathroom at the elementary school he attends. The injury occurred on March 23, when he took his bathroom break.

He went for a bathroom break and wound up harmed and sedated. Because of the sedation he was not immediately interviewed by police. Due to the extent of his injuries, he could not be talked to right away, but has since been interviewed by local authorities.

Since then, police have been able to interview him, and he remains in a local hospital in stable condition.

The second grader took a bathroom break almost near 1 pm, which according to teachers and school faculty was perfectly normal. He went in to a stall, and after a few minutes the teacher tried to speak to him by calling his name but got no answer. The teacher immediately called a security guard who after trying to talk to the boy, still did not get any kind of response. He then opened the stall and found the boy inside, drugged and hurt.

After this happened, the school nurse was quickly notified and called to the scene to begin providing first aid to the boy while they waited for an emergency medical team to arrive with help. The team arrived quickly and rushed him to the hospital.

Police will not say the cause of the injury or who could have been responsible. The boy is currently in the hospital recovering with his family while a police investigation is pending. Anyone who thinks they may have any information about this case is strongly urged to contact police or school administrators immediately.

If you or a family member has suffered an injury, such as a bicycle accident, motorcycle accident, or have a premises liability issue, it is important to speak with a skilled legal counsel as soon as possible. You may be entitled to compensation for your injuries, that can include reimbursement for medical costs, loss of income and compensation for pain and suffering.

Continue reading " Sedated Boy Interviewed in School Bathroom " »

A fire in a North Side mobile home park killed a woman and her dog, revealed reports from a New York Injury Lawyer.

There were two more men inside the address when the fire broke out, but they got out in time, although they did in fact suffer pretty severe burns.

The deceased was identified by the city coroner as a 66 year old owner of the mobile home.

The neighbor of the deceased said that the fire woke him up, and also told police that the woman who died was on an oxygen tank.

Firefighters were called to the scene around 5 am and said the fire was so big and out of control that they could see smoke from the firehouse, which was more than a mile away from the trailer park. When they arrived at the fire, it was completely engulfed in flames. Fire investigators said it took 45 minutes to put out the fire.

Because the mobile home has a tin roof, the flames and heat were kept inside the home instead of venting out the top as they would in a typical house fire. The woman and her dog were found inside the trailer when the firemen arrived. The cause of the fire is still unknown.

A New York Burn Victim Lawyer said that both of the men who escaped the blaze were admitted to Deaconess Hospital and flown immediately afterward to Wishard Memorial Hospital’s burn unit. They are suffering serious burns at this time and it is unknown when they will be released.

The neighbor was very sad about the woman’s passing, and said that the woman was a good neighbor who never went out of her way to do favors or help out in any way she could. He said she was a very quiet and pleasant woman and did not deserve to die this way.

Investigators are still doing their best to determine just what caused the mobile home to catch fire. An autopsy is being performed on the deceased.

Continue reading " Mobile Home Fire Kills Woman " »

The Deepwater Horizon Oilrig explosion and subsequent oil spill devastated many families, lives, and coastlines. The man made devastation was incalculable. A New York Injury Lawyer has learned that the widow of one of the 20 crewmen that was killed by the explosion has settled her lawsuit with BP. As a result of the settlement, the presiding U.S. District Judge agreed to dismiss the suit.

While the exact terms of the settlement were not disclosed, her lawsuit against the BP partners that were named as a part of the suit was also dismissed. It appears that the only party involved in the disaster that was not named in her suit was Transocean, who was the owner of the rig.

This lawsuit is but one of the more than 350 lawsuits that have been filed against BP, Transocean, and the many companies and contractors that were part of the oil-drilling project, sources told a NYC Personal Injury Lawyer. Each of these are from parties who claim to have been injured and/or suffered economic loss due to either the explosion itself, or due to the resulting oil spill that affected so many beachfronts and communities.

The owner of the rig, Transocean, still faces at least one federal lawsuit from the victims. For those victims who want to file a claim in that lawsuit, the deadline the federal court has set is April 20, which incidentally is the one-year anniversary of the oil rig’s explosion.

While it may be relatively simple to attempt to assess the blame for the tragedy, what many of the people in the Gulf region have experienced can defy belief. While there are those whose losses may be simplified by their having a little oil wash up on their beaches, others have endured events that are more dramatic--events, which have altered the course of their lives forever. No one should ever forget about those who died as a result of this disaster.

During the course of these events, one thing remains explicably clear, with all of the technologically advanced equipment and instruments, no one, according to the official reports, prepared for the ultimate worst-case scenario, which ultimately happened.

If you have experienced the loss of a loved one becase of a wrongful death, or have suffered an injury because of a the negligence of another, it is important to seek legal guidance right away. You may be entitled to compensation for your injuries, including reimbursement for medical expenses, loss of income, and for pain and suffering.

Continue reading " Deepwater Horizon Widow Settles Lawsuit " »

A man who knocked a woman down the stairs during a robbery on a CTA platform is being sought after for questioning, related a New York Injury Lawyer with ties to the case.

The woman 68, was rushed to the hospital, but died of a head injury, explained the N York Injury Lawyer.

Police are still looking for the robber, and have issued a community alert and been handing out fliers at the CTA’s Fullerton station. They are hoping the fliers will lead to more witnesses coming forward so the killer can be caught.

The woman who died wasn’t the target of the robbery which happened on Monday afternoon before 5 o’clock. The perpetrator grabbed the iPhone of a different person and happened to knock down the deceased while trying to make his escape.

Since a death is involved, the police are investigating it with the same importance as if it were a homicide. As far as police and investigators know the robber himself was unharmed and probably thinks he got away with his crime. Police are urging anyone with any information regarding this case to please come forward even if what they have seems significant.

The woman will be missed by her family and those in the community who knew her, as it was a tragic and senseless crime that led to a death, and all for an iPhone. The man whose iPhone was stolen felt responsible even though her family strongly urged him not to feel guilty and that it was the man who robbed him and pushed her down the stairs with no regards to anything except for whether he would get his iPhone.

People in the community were outraged at the pitiful nature of this crime and have publicly expressed their disgust. Police are hoping that this will make someone somewhere come forward with some information even if it is minor.

The man is still being sought and an investigation is pending by local police and the CTA until further notice.

Continue reading " CTA Robber Kills Woman " »

A Hilltown, PA, doctor stands accused of prescribing medication to patients in exchange for sexual favors, sources told a New York Injury Attorney. The same doctor is also facing allegations in a malpractice suit for his alleged role in the suicide of a local police detective.

On Thursday, the accused doctor exercised his rights and chose to waive a preliminary hearing, after which he was ordered to stand trial and face the charges that have been laid against him. The charges were placed as a result of a police department investigation involving both undercover officers and informants, a Staten Island Personal Injury Lawyer learned.

The investigation into the doctor’s alleged pills-for-sex activities began as a result of an unrelated investigation. One of these investigations involved a drug-dealing pimp, and the other involved instances of drug smuggling into the women’s prison. By combining the information from both investigations, police were able to begin a different investigation, which resulted in the charges being filed against the doctor.

As stated previously, criminal charges are not the only legal problems currently besieging the doctor. A malpractice lawsuit was filed against him in March 2010 by the attorney who represents the widow of a police officer who was under the doctor’s care before committing suicide.

According to the sources who spoke with a New York Wrongful Death Lawyer, the head detective of the Upper Gwynedd police department had missed work for approximately three months due to having had shoulder surgery. He visited the doctor, who was his doctor of record at that time, due to some anxiety that he was feeling due to returning to work with a different police chief. The doctor allegedly not only prescribed the detective allergy and sleep medication, but also Xanax. One of Xanaxes known side effects is for the patient to have suicidal thoughts.

The initial Xanax dosage that was prescribed to the detective was 1 mg a day. Over the course of the next month, the dosage was increased to 8 mg a day, which according to the widow’s attorney is “an extraordinary amount.”

As of this writing, no trial date has yet been set for either case.

If you have been injured due to the negligence of another or due to carelessness, it is important to contact legal counsel right away to learn about what legal recourse you may have. You may be entitled to compensation for you injuries, which can include reimbursement for medical expenses, loss of income, as well as pain and suffering.

Continue reading " Doctor Accused in Sex-For-Pills Sting " »

The Governor of the State of Alabama as well as the Alabama Attorney General are both reminding and urging all of the victims of the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill to submit their claims to the federal court before the April 20 deadline, sources revealed to a New York Injury Lawyer. That is the deadline that the federal court in New Orleans has set for people to file claims against the rig’s owner, Transocean.

The Alabama Attorney General has been especially vocal about the apparent lack of cooperation with the BP claim processing that has taken place since the company began processing and disbursing claim payments, a Westchester Personal Injury Lawyer was told. This is in contrast to the claims that the processing center has made about recently reaching a milestone and having processed about half of the claims against BP. He recently commented that, “Quit dragging your feet and stalling the large majority of claims to a point where victims are so desperate that they settle for anything.

Alabama’s governor and attorney general have reportedly taken a larger role than the previous administration and have vowed to fight for the area since they believe it was harder hit when the oil spill washed ashore after the oilrig exploded.

When the Deepwater Horizon oilrig exploded and allowed untold millions of barrels of crude oil to flow into the Gulf of Mexico, no one could know what hazards would be experienced, nor how far the damage would go. While the oil spill was allegedly contained and the oil well itself was capped, hundreds, if not thousands of people continue to struggle with how to cope with the aftermath of this manmade disaster. Time has been too short to determine the long-term physical, psychological, and emotional affects that await its victims, just as the environmental damage may also not manifest itself for many years.

As the governments, oil executives, judges, and lawyers all make their arguments both for and against each other; the government of the State of Alabama is asking its citizens to beat the deadline for including their claims in the federal lawsuit. This seems to be the only way they will receive anything for their lives being untracked, and in many cases completely destroyed.

Whether you have been injured due to a premises liabilty issue, a defective product, or have suffered injury from a car accident, the law offices of Stephen Bilkis are here to assist you, provide you with real guidance to your problem, and a free consultation. Call us today and schedule a free consultation at any of our offices located in the New York area.

Continue reading " Alabama Reminds Oil Spill Victims of Deadline to File Lawsuit " »

On Wednesday, the Florida 4th District Court of Appeals overturned an earlier decision by a Circuit Court judge thereby allowing a lawsuit that was filed in 2005, a New York Injury Lawyer has learned. As part of that decision, the appeals court ruled that the lower court had erred when it dismissed a negligence lawsuit in 2009.

The suit alleges that the plaintiff had entered the hospital in May 2002 seeking to have a broken ankle surgically repaired.. During her stay at the hospital, she acquired methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus, which is more commonly referred to as MRSA. The staff infection reportedly caused the plaintiff injury and complications.

MRSA is caused by a strain of staph bacteria, which has become resistant to the types of antibiotics that are normally used to treat staph infections. A NY Injury Lawyer found that MRSA commonly occurs in places such as hospitals, prisons, nursing homes, and dialysis centers. Any place that people have frequent skin contact is considered a possible place to acquire MRSA.

Although the original plaintiff in the case that the appellate court ruled on died in 2009, her husband has continued with the lawsuit. It should be stated at this point that while the woman did develop complications from her acquisition of MRSA at the hospital in 2002, her death was unrelated to MRSA.

The ruling on this case has paved the way for about 17 additional cases that have been pending the outcome of this decision. The widower’s attorney went on to say that the trial judge had dealt a big blow to every case that was awaiting trial for hospital acquired MRSA that had been filed either at the same time as this case, or during the time span since. These cases can all proceed to trial now, and those parties concerned can now have their day in court.

Suffice it to say that the hospital that was named in the case was disappointed with the appellate court’s ruling, and they would simply say that their legal teams are moving forward as the pending lawsuits make their way through the judicial process.

If you have been the victim of the negligence of another, including medical malpractice, a construction accident, or a defective product, it is important to speak to legal counsel as soon as possible. You may be entitled to compensation for your injuries, which can include not only medical expenses, but also compensation for pain and suffering, as well as lost income from work.

Continue reading " FL Appeals Court Gives Green Light to Staph Suit " »

A Plant City, FL, man is in the Hillsborough County Jail today as he waits for his court hearing on Friday after being charged with DUI manslaughter. The charges arise from a car accident that occurred on March 6 that resulted in two people being killed and two others injured including the accused.

Florida State Troopers told a New York Injury Lawyer that the accused was driving eastbound on State Road 60, in the westbound lanes, and just west of State Road 39. He then reportedly struck an oncoming vehicle nearly head-on. The 33-year old driver of the other vehicle was seriously injured, and her 34-year old passenger was killed at the scene. The accused man’s 23-year old passenger was also killed in the crash. The man who has been arrested and charged as a result of this was also injured.

Many of the eyewitnesses of the crash were horrified, and those who could see the vehicle driving in the wrong direction report that they felt helpless as they watched and could do nothing to stop it.

As part of their ongoing investigation, the troopers reports said that the 50-year old man’s blood alcohol content was 0.216. Florida’s legal maximum blood alcohol content is 0.08. Driving under the influence and manslaughter are not the accused only charges that he faces. A NYC Personal Injury Lawyer also found the man has also been charged with “driving under the influence involving serious bodily injury, and one count of DUI property damage.” Since he was driving on the wrong side of the road, he received a traffic citation for that as well.

In the State of Florida, DUI manslaughter is considered a Second Degree Felony. If convicted the accused faces heavy fines, payment of restitution, and a maximum prison sentence of up to 15 years. If convicted of the charge of DUI involving serious bodily injury, which is a Third Degree Felony, he could receive up to a $5,000 fine and up to five-years in prison. There is also the possibility of his losing his driving license for the rest of his life also.

If you have suffered injury due to the carelessness or negligence of another party, it is important to speak to legal counsel right away. You have a right to receive just compensation for your injuries, which can include reimbursement for medical expenses, lost income from work, and pain and suffering. It is important to act promptly however, as there are strict filing deadlines on personal injury cases. Do not delay, and call us today for a free consultation.

Continue reading " Florida Man Facing DUI Manslaughter Charge " »

By means of a recent report that was issued Tuesday, a New York Injury Attorney learned that at least part of the reason for rogue doctors being allowed to continue practicing medicine after having established a negative history is that state medical boards are not disciplining them. They are not disciplining them even after both hospitals and in many instances, the legal system have established histories of negligence and malpractice.

State medical boards are charged with the responsibility of licensing and also with the disciplining of doctors, dentists, and some other medical professionals. The problem it seems, is that once rogue doctors have been disciplined and in some cases restricted and fired from a hospital, the state medical boards are lax in disciplining them. The report that was prepared by Public Citizen, which is a nonprofit consumer advocacy group, further states that Florida’s proportion of undisciplined doctors was higher than the national average.

The group acquired the data used in the report from the National Practitioner Data Bank that was established as a way to track those doctors who were either barred, or restricted. Hospitals, state licensing boards, and professional societies are required to report any activity involving doctors whose privileges to practice at a hospital have been suspended or revoked, or whose license has been suspended or restricted. The reporting requirement is also inclusive of any issues with the doctor’s professional conduct or competence.

There have been relatively few doctors that have been disciplined over the past 20 years, the NYC Personal Injury Lawyer was told. Of the 10,000 doctors that have been disciplined during that time, only 5,800 of them were actually discharged from their duties at a hospital. The report goes on to add that in most cases the state medical boards took no action against the problematic doctors, and that most of them continue to practice medicine.

While the report lists a few examples of problem doctors, there is one that is troublesome. One such doctor, who was never disciplined by the state medical board, had at least 10 medical malpractice reports over a 14-year period that totaled more than $7 million in damages.

Continue reading " Many State Medical Boards Leave Bad Doctors Undisciplined " »

There are DWI suspects, and then there are DWI suspects who drive their pickup truck onto a police cruiser. A New York Injury Lawyer was told of a recent DWI arrest that a 26-year old man may want to tell his children about, or perhaps he would just as soon forget about it.

Early Sunday morning outside of a local bar, two men became involved in an argument following a night of drinking. As the two men were outside of the bar continuing in their heated discussion, one of the men climbed into his Volkswagen and sped away. The other young man would not hear of it and chose to enter his F-250 pickup and give chase to the other man, recounts the NY Personal Injury Lawyer. The chase continued for a short time and ended when the man in the pickup truck forced the driver of the Volkswagen into a utility pole. As bad as this is at the moment, unfortunately the story does not end at this point.

The 26-year old pickup truck driver, having had a few too many alcoholic beverages at the bar and apparently startled at the crumbled up Volkswagen that lay before him, threw his pickup into reverse so as to back away from the damaged vehicle. What he did not notice was the unmarked police vehicle that had been driven in behind his truck by an alert detective who had been witness to almost the entire crash.

Having his vehicle in reverse and unaware of the detective behind him, he backed his truck onto the hood of the police car. Thankfully, the detective was quickly taken to the local hospital where he was treated and released with minor injuries. The monster-truck driver, however, was immediately taken into custody and charged not only DWI, but also with reckless driving, negligent driving, and two counts of second-degree assault.

The 26-year old Maryland man with monster-truck ambitions was released from jail sometime Sunday morning after posting a $10,000 bond.

Drinking and driving never mixes, regardless of whether you drive on or off road. If you have been injured because of the negligence or carelessness of another, whether it involves a brain injury, broken bone, or back injury, it is important to get legal guidance as soon as possible. You may be entitled to compensation for your injuries including reimbursement for medical expenses, pain and suffering, and loss of income.

Continue reading " Man Drives Monster Truck onto Police Cruiser " »