Articles Posted in Bronx

Published on:

by

In 2005, the family of a woman who had died of lung cancer filed a civil suit against four cigarette manufacturing companies for her untimely death. The family stated that the woman had been enticed to start smoking at just 14 years of age and that she had smoked heavily throughout her life. A New York Injury Lawyer said the suite claimed that cigarette manufactures that were named in the suit had enticed her with attractive advertising that displayed cigarettes as harmless and in some situations in the early years of her addiction, the advertisements portrayed cigarettes as a healthy way to prevent illness.

Her family maintains that she was always concerned about her health and that she had taken several steps over the years to improve her risks based on more advertising by the tobacco companies. When the tobacco companies marketed lite cigarettes, they implied that these cigarettes had less tar and carcinogens than regular cigarettes. She switched to lite cigarettes to be more healthy. The family testified that she had tried unsuccessfully to stop smoking on numerous occasions and that she was not successful because she had become addicted to the cigarettes.

The family further stated that the tobacco companies knowingly manufactured these cigarettes that are dangerous, even though there were less dangerous alternatives that they could have produced. The suit specifically stated documentation that showed that the tobacco companies were aware of several options that could be less hazardous to the health of persons who chose to smoke and negligently dismissed producing them. These options included cigarettes made with coarser tobacco so that less of the tar is ingested. Another option that had been dismissed was manufacturing cigarettes without tar or other chemicals that are specifically dangerous. The family noted that the woman had specifically chosen filtered and lite cigarettes in an attempt to make her habit less damaging to her health. That was used as an example of the strength of her addiction as well as her desire to not harm herself with the use of cigarettes.

Continue reading

Published on:

by

This is an interesting case being heard in the Kings County Supreme Court that involves the plaintiff, Christopher-Earl Strunk and a number of defendants. Among the defendants for the case are President Barack Obama, along with Vice President Joe Biden, and Senator John McCain. Additional defendants include the Speaker of the House John Boehner, Representative Nancy Pelosi, and Governor Andrew Cuomo, Comptroller Thomas Di Napoli, Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, and billionaires Penny Pritzker, Peter Petersen, and George Soros, as well as six political parties from the state of New York.

Complaint

The plaintiff, Strunk, offers a 45 page document that delivers a number of variations on “birther” cases. The central allegation being made by the plaintiff is that the defendants Senator John McCain and President Barack Obama are not citizens naturally born in the United States of America according to his interpretation of clause 5 of the United States Constitution. A New York Injury Lawyer said the plaintiff declares that the two are involved with the other defendants in a conspiracy to defraud the people of the United States on behalf of the Roman Catholic Church. He offers a lengthy diatribe against all of the defendants as well as the Roman Catholic Church, the Vatican, and the Jesuit Order or Society of Jesus.

Continue reading

Published on:

by

Queens Birth Injury 5

This is a case being heard in the Kings County Family Court. The case involves the children, Justin S., Brandon S., and Shyrelle F., all under the age of eighteen. A New York Injury Lawyer said the case is alleging neglect of the children by the respondent, Wendell S. The children, Brandon and Justin are represented by Michael A. Fiecter. Shyrelle is represented by attorney Kim Ostheimer. Christine Waer, Esq. who is the Special Assistant for the Corporation Counsel Administration of Children’s Services and is seeking charges of neglect. The respondent father is represented by Rhonda Weir, Esq. The non respondent mother is represented by Kim Ostheimer.

Case at Hand

Continue reading

Published on:

by

This is a case of appeal being heard in the Second Department of the Supreme Court Appellate Division. The appellant in the case is Rita Prado. The respondents of the case are the Catholic Medical Center of Brooklyn and Queens, Inc. et al.

Case History

The plaintiff is appealing a verdict from a medical malpractice suit that was heard in the Queens County Supreme Court. The original verdict made by the Supreme Court was in favor of the defendants, granting a summary judgment in the case. A New York Injury Lawyer said the complaint made by the plaintiff was dismissed.

Continue reading

Published on:

by

This case involves the plaintiff Siobhan Dennehy, who is the adminstratrix for the estate of Victor Pauta who is deceased versus the McGraw Hudson Construction Corporation and owner of 340 Madison. The McGraw Hudson Construction Corporation is also the plaintiff against the third party defendants All State Interior Demolition and High Rise Hoisting and Scaffolding. Additionally, a New York Injury Lawyer said the All State Interior Demolition Inc and High Rise Hoisting and Scaffolding are second third party plaintiffs against Site Safety LLC, the third party defendants.

Case History

The decedent of the plaintiff, Victor Pauta, worked construction and lived in Queens County. On the 21st of June, 2005, he fell from a scaffold while working at 340 Madison Avenue, located in midtown Manhattan. He suffered injuries to his back and neck from the fall and later died as a result.

Continue reading

Published on:

by

Birth Injury 129

The plaintiffs of the case are Alexander Perez and Invannia Mieses- Perez. The defendants of the case are the University Hospital of Columbia and Cornell, Nicole Rodney, Jack Maidman M.D., Kimberly Mathis M.D., Sharmilee Bansal M.D., and Joshua Holden M.D. The case is being heard in the State of New York Supreme Court.

Case History

Continue reading

Published on:

by

A ten year old boy studying at a Jewish elementary School in Kings County was supposed to stay in the classroom but he slipped out. A New York Injury Lawyer said he met his younger brother in the hallway near the stairs. They played and horsed around. While they were doing so, the ten year old boy had a slip and fall down the stairs during which he sustained injury. His parents sued the school on two basis: their failure to duly supervise their child and for their responsibility to keep their premises safe for the students.

The parents and the school asked the teacher in charge of the ten year old boy to execute a statement detailing what he knew and observed on the day of the boy’s slip and fall. He testified that the boy had slipped out unnoticed from the classroom prior to the accident; but the boy also managed to obtain permission to leave the classroom on several occasions prior to the accident so that the teacher cannot now remember if the boy had obtained his permission to leave the classroom on the day of his accident.

The Court ruled that this statement of the boy’s teacher cannot be considered as evidence in admissible form as it was not signed or sworn to before a person authorized to administer oaths.

Continue reading

Published on:

by

Anytime that a baby suffers a birth injury it is a traumatic experience for everyone involved. Sometimes, a birth injury is an act of medical malpractice. In that case, it is even more traumatic for the family. In one case which occurred at Harlem Hospital Center on October 23, 1997. A woman came into the hospital suffering from symptoms of early onset labor. She was only 28 weeks pregnant. The doctors gave her tocolytics in an attempt to stop her labor. However, the administration of the medication was not successful and her labor continued. The baby boy was born severely premature. The doctors advised the mother that the baby was born with an intestinal condition that required immediate surgery. She permitted the surgery on the baby.

A New York Injury Lawyer said the doctors at Harlem Hospital Center performed a left hemicolectomy and a temporary colostomy. The baby remained in the hospital until January 28, 1998 while he suffered from ongoing problems with his intestines. After being discharged from the hospital, the baby continued to have serious problems with his bowels and on January 8, 1999, the doctors at Harlem Hospital Center performed an anorectal pull through and colostomy closure. The child continued to have problems and continued to be a patient at the hospital off and on through the next several years, until 2001.

In 2001, his mother felt that it was time to get a second opinion because she had begun to doubt that the care that her son was receiving at Harlem was in his best interest. She took him to New York Presbyterian Hospital for an evaluation. At that time the doctors there informed her that the anorectal pull through had been performed improperly. On September 22, 2006, the child underwent intestinal surgery at Presbyterian to correct the damage that they told her had been done at Harlem.

Continue reading

Published on:

by

The Facts:

On 28 June 2004 at 8 a.m., plaintiff slipped and fell on water located on the sixth floor bathroom of defendant-one, a property owned and managed by defendant-two. A New York Injury Lawyer said the plaintiff alleges that the dangerous water condition which caused his fall and resultant injuries was due to the defendants’ negligence.

On 7 September 2005, plaintiffs commenced the instant personal injury action.

Continue reading

Published on:

by

The Facts:

A New York Injury Lawyer said that on 30 November 1982, the primary plaintiff began to have contractions. The next day, she visited her obstetrician (the “doctor”) who told her to go home and wait. At approximately 5:30 to 5:45 a.m. on 2 December 1982, she ruptured her membranes and her doctor was called. He then advised her to go to a hospital where he would meet her. She was admitted at 8:00 a.m., but the doctor never arrived. A hospital doctor advised the plaintiff that the baby was dead in utero but that nothing could be done until her doctor arrived because she was a private patient. Hours later, after 12:30 p.m., word came that another doctor, the doctor’s partner, would be performing a caesarean. Thereafter, the stillborn child was in fact taken by caesarean.

The plaintiff and her husband commenced a medical malpracticeaction against the obstetrician and his company, the obstetrician’s partner and the Hospital where the caesarian was performed; for the personal injuries or birth injuries suffered.

Continue reading

Contact Information