Articles Posted in Brooklyn

Published on:

The plaintiff in the case is Willie B. Sosa. The defendants in the case are Lorenzo Hines, Eddie Meyers, Harold Hall, and the Estate of Dessie Ree Meyers. The judge in the case is Arthur M. Schack.

About the Case

This is a case that involves a real estate dispute. The real estate in question is the property located at 363 Monroe Street, in Brooklyn, New York. A New York Injury Lawyer said the plaintiff moves to show cause for three branches of relief in the case. The first branch of relief is to stay the thirty-day notice of termination which is dated the 27th of April, 2006. The plaintiff states that this notice violates the notice requirements for ending a tenancy.

Published on:

On 17 March 1979, infant plaintiff was born. Allegedly, infant plaintiff suffered brain damage, a brain injury, as a result of negligent obstetrical care.

Thus, a medical malpractice action was brought by the infant and his father on the basis of the birth injury or birth injury accident.

At an examination before trial, plaintiffs produced the infant’s mother, a nonparty witness.

Published on:

An action for medical malpractice alleges that the medical professionals negligently departed from good and accepted standards of medical/obstetrical care and treatment and failed to give informed consent to a woman during her admission to a University Hospital relating to her pregnancy, labor and delivery of her infant.

It is further claimed that the physicians failed to provide the infant with proper medical care and treatment causing the infant to suffer serious and severe injury. It is claimed that the infant suffered preterm labor, brain damage, cerebral palsy, non-coordination of muscles, global developmental delays, respiratory distress syndrome; persistent pulmonary hypertension, chronic lung disease, translucent membrane disease, abnormally high pigment amount, stomach reflux, pronated lower extremities with difficulty walking, reactive airway disease, cognitive impairment and delays, communicative impairment and delays, difficulty seeing with his left eye, pervasive development disorder, autistic spectrum disorder, loss of enjoyment of life, social-emotional developmental delay, and impaired earning capacity. It is claimed that the infant has been caused to require early intervention services, physical therapy, occupational therapy, speech therapy, and may require custodial care, medical care including therapies and equipment and special residential accommodations and modifications.

A New York Injury Lawyer said it is noted in the University Hospital record that the mother of the child, then a twenty-eight year old female, was admitted with a diagnosis of premature labor, to the service of a female gynecologist. It was her second pregnancy with a prior confidential termination of pregnancy. She was noted to be 33 1/7 weeks pregnant and the infant was estimated to be about five pounds. She complained of feeling pulling in her upper abdomen followed by rupture of the membranes with clear yellow-tinged fluid. Fetal movement was reported well and there was no vaginal bleeding. She had been seen at a town hospital where she was ruled/in for rupture of the membranes and transported to the University Hospital. At the University Hospital, the plan was to monitor her for contractions and if persistent, proceed with medication for at least 48 hours to obtain maximum benefit of steroids for the infant’s lung maturity. The nurse’s note written indicates a family member alerted the nursing staff that the mother was in the bathroom with the umbilical cord hanging out. One nurse placed her hand to relieve pressure on the cord and another nurse called a doctor. She was transferred to the labor and delivery room and an emergent caesarean section was performed. The birth report indicates that a male was delivered. Resuscitation was noted and he was intubated. Uneven chest excursion was noted.

Published on:

Anyone who has been injured in a slip and fallcase on another person’s property is required to demonstrate why they believe that the other person is liable for their injuries in order to win any type of award for damages resulting from that fall. That means that just because a person falls and gets hurt on another person’s property, that person may not carry any liability at all if the victim cannot show that the owner of the property knew, or should have known, of the hazardous situation. That owner is then responsible for resolving the dangerous situation before anyone is injured. If the owner has knowledge of the situation and then intentionally does not take steps to correct the problem, they may have liability associated to any injury that occurs as a result of their negligence.

A New York Injury Lawyer said in civil disputes, such as a slip and fall lawsuit, the burden of proof to establish negligence is on the victim and not the property owner. The person who files that claim must be able to show that the property owner was notified at one time or another that there was a hazardous situation on their property that could result in an injury to a person. The victim must then show that the property owner took no steps to correct the problem which results in a liability for them. Only then can the victim be awarded any type of damages related to the incident.

This type of review is necessary because a property owner should not be liable for an injury that results on their property that is not their fault. A Long Island Personal Injury Lawyer said just because a person trips and falls and injures themselves while they are on the property of another, that property owner is not responsible unless they created the hazardous situation. In one case, a person was traversing a stairway in a building and slipped and fell down the stairs. They filed a lawsuit against the property owner stating that the stairs had a spill on them that should have been cleaned up before someone was hurt. The victim did not establish how the property owner should have been made aware of the spill and had it cleaned up before the victim fell on the stairs.

Published on:

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.


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.

Published on:

This is a case of appeal. The appellant of the case is Miguel M. The respondent in the case is Charles Barron. The case is being heard in the Second Department of the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division.

Court Opinion

A New York Injury Lawyer said this is an appeal case where the court is asked to determine if a physician can obtain medical records for a patient without the authorization of the individual or a court order in regard to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act or HIPAA in specific situations.

Published on:

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

Published on:

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.

Published on:

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.

Published on:

Plaintiffs file a complaint raising a variety of civil rights claims under federal and state law against the County of Albany, the Albany County Department of Social Services (“DSS”), the Commissioner of DSS in his official capacity, and three other caseworkers.

A New York Injury Lawyer said the center of each of the claims is the fact that for the first five years of the child’s life, his father, plaintiff-one, was not only denied custody of his child, but also, for the most part, unsupervised visitation. Over this five-year period, to gain child custody, plaintiff-one was required to undergo drug assessments, drug screenings, drug rehabilitation programs, psychological and mental health evaluations, parenting classes, supervision in his interactions with his child, the burden of protracted Family Court litigation and continual governmental interference with his right to parent his child all in the absence of proof that he was, or had ever been, an unfit, neglectful or abusive parent to his son (or any other child).

Defendants move for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and argue that plaintiffs’ claims are foreclosed by various immunities, including: judicial immunity; discretionary function immunity; qualified immunity; and immunity for the reporting of suspected child abuse or neglect. Further, defendants contend that they are entitled to summary judgment on the merits of the various constitutional and statutory claims asserted by plaintiffs. One of the defendants also argues that service upon him of the complaint and summons have not been made, therefore, the Court lacks jurisdiction over him.

Contact Information