New York Personal Injury Lawyer Blog

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.

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.

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.

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 helicopter carrying a large air conditioning unit crashed into another building injuring the pilot, but not causing any fatalities. The aircraft was carrying the unit to a nearby office building, states a New York Injury Lawyer. When the helicopter crashed it caught fire. The first and second floors of the building were badly damaged due to the fire. Fire fighters were able to get to the scene quickly to put the fire out. No one was on those floors at the time.

The pilot was injured and taken to a nearby hospital where he was treated. The helicopter was not salvable and burned in the fire. The accident happened about one mile from the Los Angeles Airport, in the town of El Segundo, California. The accident occurred on a Sunday morning. It is unclear the extent of the pilots injuries or if he will require additional out-patient care after being released from the hospital.

Fire fighters quickly rescued the pilot from the cockpit before the fire reached him. According to the fire chief, it took about 30 minutes to put the fire out. The pilot's injuries would have been much worse if he had not been pulled from the helicopter at that time. No one else in the building or on the ground was injured.

It is unclear if pilot error caused the helicopter to crash or if it was a mechanical error or carrying if too much weight was the cause. Since the helicopter was destroyed in the fire, it may be impossible to know the actual cause of the crash. According to a Queens Personal Injury Lawyer, further investigation will be necessary to determine the cause or causes of the crash.

It is unknown if the air conditioning unit was salvageable after the fire was put out. Depending on the severity of the fire, the unit may have been destroyed along with the helicopter. It is uncertain whether a new air conditioning unit will be flown over to the same location. Fortunately, fire fighters arrived on the scene in a timely manner to put out the fire and prevent any additional injuries.

This pilot was lucky. Whether a helicopter crash, or an airplane crash, these types of accidents can cause serious injury and often death. They often pose unique and complicated legal challenges. Discovering the chain of events that caused the crash is often difficult, particularly when the plane has been destroyed in the accident. If you or a loved one has been involved in an accident that has resulted in serious injury, seek legal guidance right away. You could be entitled to compensation for your injuries, including reimbursement for medical expenses, pain and suffering, and loss of income.

Continue reading "Helicopter Crashes into Building While Airlifting Air Conditioning Unit" »

Prosecutors have revealed the plot of a New Jersey doctor who plotted to have his wife, his lover, and his former business partner – all three – murdered. The 63-year-old internist is still in jail with $2.5 million bail.

While the man was arrested last year as part of a Medicaid fraud investigation, authorities uncovered a disturbing series of plots. A New York Injury Lawyer reveals that it is not uncommon for police to question someone about one crime and inadvertently stumble onto information about another. Officials in the process of investigating one series of events will often find evidence of other wrongdoings, related and otherwise.

They learned that the doctor had long desired to hire an acquaintance of his to kill his lover. Why did he want to suddenly end this relationship? Because he owed her $250,000 and because he feared his wife would discover his philandering, according to a Queens Personal Injury Lawyer.

The discoveries didn’t stop there. Another plot to kill his former business partner was soon uncovered. Why did the doctor want this man dead? He needed to settle a long-standing dispute, and apparently he felt the death of the other man was the only sure way to do so.

Later, while the good doctor was in jail because of the earlier Medicaid investigation, yet another plot unfolded when he tried to hire a man to kill his wife. What was his reasoning in attempting to hire an inmate? He feared his wife would divorce him and take his money.

The doctor – a person charged with ensuring the sanctity of life - plotted to kill three people in order to save his money from the hands of others, and he now faces three counts of attempted murder and conspiracy to commit murder. It is unclear at this time whether the doctor yet has an attorney.

There has been no word from the wife, the lover and the former business partner at this time. It is unclear if the plans to hire these people ever progressed to any actual act of violence.

Continue reading "Doctor Conspires to Kill Three to Save His Money " »

A Queenboro off-ramp has been a big factor, if not the ultimate cause, in the death of a second person in a two-week time period. A mother of two who crashed due to a dangerous off-ramp died in the hospital, according to sources.

The 40-year-old woman happens to be the second death caused by crashes from the off-ramp. The last fatal car accident in the exact same location occurred only a week before. In the previous accident, one with very similar circumstances, a car lost control coming off of the ramp and hit a pedestrian, killing that person instantly.

“They should definitely fix that bridge exit. I think she would be alive today if they would have fixed it,” a sister-in-law of the victim said. The victim was survived by a husband and two teenage boys.

She was a passenger in the Volkswagen driven by a 39-year-old man, when it lost control while leaving the bridge into Queens. The vehicle hit the guardrail near the end of the outer-lane exit ramp and slid across Queens Plaza South, slamming into two storefronts. The accident severed the left arm of the driver and the passenger suffered severe head wounds. When the victim died, her estranged husband was at her side.

Family and friends blame the accident on the ramp, part of a $44 million bridge-plaza reconstruction project. The city is already planning to reconstruct the ramp as part of improvements to Queens Plaza North and South. The process will take around three months.

In the meantime, traffic has been funneled into a single lane of Queens Plaza South, while workers attempt to make the off-ramps safer, New York Injury Attorneys have learned.

A 35-year-old driver suffered a similar accident coming off the same ramp not long ago, even to the point of severing his arm, as happened to a subsequent driver down the ramp. He was taken to Bellevue Hospital.

“I hear there’s been another crash,” he said to a New York Injury Attorney. “I’m in a lot of pain,” he added later.

Continue reading "Another Car Accident on the Queensboro Off-Ramp Takes a Life" »

A New York Injury Lawyer was quick to agree that Emilio Navaira, a Tejano Singer, was extremely neglectful to ruin his tour bus while he drove home in a drunken stage from a concert.
According to a friend and confident of the accused, the singer did some damage to the vehicles in the accident, but not nearly as much damage as his previous bass player did. It so happened that in court, the former bass player asked for a little less than $95,000, which the juries awarded him.
After the court session, both the defendant and the complaint said that they agreed with the verdict. According to the bass player, he just wanted everything to be over. He said that the guy in the accident was his friend and now he wanted to move forward.
The NY Injury Lawyer indicated that the bass player looked like he did not want to hurt his friend. He had told the jurors that he had never seen Navaira drinking while he was doing the concert. All he could remember was the brake slamming on the highway and his friend trying to control the vehicle. The Tejano Singer had to have five brain operations because of his extensive injuries.
The lawsuit between the former bass player and the Singer was settled in court. The bass player was originally asking for one million dollars and after deliberating for eight hours, the jury came back with a lesser amount that seemed to be favorably to the complainant in the end. In Brooklyn and Queens, cases like this one are handled in the same manner.

Continue reading "Singer found to be negligent" »