Brooklyn

Published on: May 7, 2012

Plaintiff Contends Faulty Lighting in Stairwell Caused Slip and Fall

by Stephen Bilkis

A woman seeks damages for personal injuries sustained when she slipped and fell (slip and fall) inside parking lot staircase inside of a Center Mall. The premises are jointly owned, managed and operated by the companies who owned the parking garages/lots of the Center Mall. A third party provides certain maintenance and housekeeping services for the Queens Center Mall.

The woman alleges that on the date of the accident, it was an overcast morning with sunrise at 6:22 a.m., and that therefore there was limited natural lighting at the time of the occurrence. The weather records relied upon by moving accused parties indicate that it had rained on the two days prior to the date of the accident with wind gusts up to 53 miles per hour, however that the weather, on the date of the accident, was clear. It is further alleged that the woman was descending the steps of the stairwell when she was caused to slip and fall due to the negligently designed, negligently constructed and/or negligently maintained stairs and treads; recurring wet, slippery, slick and/or damp condition of their stairwell; and unlit or improperly lit condition of their stairwell. A New York Injury Lawyer said the record reveals that the steps are made of cement that is white in color and that there are strip/tread at the edge/nose of each step prior to descending to the next level, that are dark brown or charcoal-colored, and is contrasting in color from the concrete steps. There are also handrails on both sides of the stairs in the subject stairwell.

Furthermore, there was artificial lighting from fluorescent light fixtures that are attached to the walls and there was natural light from the windows facing the north side of the East parking structure, which are sealed shut.

Published on: May 4, 2012

Dog Causes Trip and Fall Injury, New York Appellate Court Denies Directed Verdict & Orders New Trial

by Stephen Bilkis

Two neighbors had a common fence between their properties. The owner of one of the properties had three young children and a rambunctious dog. The owners of the adjoining property were an elderly couple who lived with their niece.

A New York Injury Lawyer said ihttps://www.1800nynylaw.com/n the year prior to the incident, the elderly lady petted the dog through the fence and called the dog “her boyfriend” because he stood up and licked people’s faces. Prior to the incident, the dog would put his forepaws on the fence and barked.

The dog also put his forepaws on people’s chests but in a friendly and non-aggressive manner. But the dog was big and some people are startled by the dog’s overly friendly behavior.

Published on: May 3, 2012

Mother Sues for Medical Malpractice in Death of Infant, Court Denies Motion for Summary Judgement

by Stephen Bilkis

A woman first came to see the obstetrician on October 14, 2004. She was told that she was estimated to deliver around May 29, 2005. On her first visit, her blood pressure was 100/60. Her first sonogram showed that the size of the fetus was consistent with the due date. But later sonograms showed that the fetus was larger than its gestational age.

A New York Injury Lawyer said by the middle of the month of May, the woman had edema of the hands and feet, her urine had traces of protein and she reported spotting in her vision. On June 6, she reported shivering and on June 7, she reported that she did not feel any heartbeat.

The woman still had not given birth by June 8, 2005 but when she felt tightness in her abdomen and saw blood on her underpants, she went to the hospital. She was noted to have contractions and was placed on a fetal monitor. She was found to only be one to two centimeters dilated.

Published on: May 1, 2012

Plaintiff Seeks to Declare Neighbors Dog Dangerous, NY Appellate Court Finds for Plaintiff

by Stephen Bilkis

A man owned a Chesapeake Bay retriever. It attacked the daughter of his neighbor and caused serious injury to her. The father brought suit against the dog owner and asked the court to declare the Chesapeake Bay retriever a dangerous dog.

A New York Injury Lawyer said a dangerous dog is defined as one who has attacked a person or another animal without justification and has caused serious injury. Under the law, the owner who allows his dog to bite another person knowing that his dog has a propensity to bite shall pay restitution not exceeding $1,500 plus penalties and pay unreimbursed medical expenses, lost earnings and other damages resulting from the injury. The dog will also be put down. Further, the law mandated that the owner of the dog shall be strictly liable for medical costs resulting from injury caused by his dog.

The judge made an oral decision declaring the Chesapeake Bay retriever was a dangerous dog. He imposed the $1,500 civil penalty. The judge declared also that the owner was strictly liable for the unreimbursed medical expenses. The judge deferred ordering the euthanasia of the dog as it had already been sold.

Published on: April 28, 2012

Birth Injury Results in Paraplegia, New York Appellate Court Ruled for Plaintiff

by Stephen Bilkis

Plaintiff was admitted to one of the defendants’ hospitals for a cesarean section (birth injury or birth injury accident), the second of such procedures performed upon her, and emerged therefrom a paraplegic (paraplegia). The instant action was then commenced against defendants.

Were the defendants negligent that would warrant a finding of medical malpractice?

Plaintiffs introduced medical experts whose view were to the effect that the injuries to the plaintiff resulted from a compression of the arteries supplying blood to the spinal cord, and this view found some further support in the hospital’s own records, in a note containing the impression that the plaintiff was suffering from paralysis as a result of the compressing of her spinal cord.

Published on: April 22, 2012

New York Appellate Court Decides Car Accident Liability Issue

by Stephen Bilkis

Kings County Personal Injury 125

The plaintiff in the case is Don J. Peters and the defendant in this case is the City of New York, et al. The other plaintiff in the case is Charlene Cowan and the defendant in this case is the City of New York, et al.

About the Case

Published on: April 17, 2012

Should the Concept of the Duty of Tort be Extended to People Who Witnessed an Accident?

by Stephen Bilkis

There are two appeals or two cases before the court.

On 24 May 1975, a family were riding in their station wagon but had to stop at the side of the Southern State Parkway in Nassau County due to mechanical difficulties. The father and driver, alighted from the vehicle, went around to the rear, and leaned inside the open tailgate window. The wife remained seated in the front passenger seat, and their daughter was in the rear seat. At this point, the station wagon was struck in the rear by an automobile owned by defendant-one and driven by defendant-two. The father was seriously injured in the car accidentwhen he was pinned between the two vehicles. The mother and daughter were thrown about the station wagon by the force of the impact but suffered less serious physical injuries than the father. Although neither mother nor daughter actually saw the car strike their station wagon as they were facing forward or to the side, both were instantly aware of the impact and the fact that the father must have been injured and each thereafter immediately observed their seriously injured husband and father.

While on 3 June 1978, a father and a mother were riding with their two infant daughters in the family car along a roadway in the Mid-Westchester Mall in Cortlandt, New York. A New York Injury Lawyer the father was driving the vehicle, his wife, was in the front passenger seat with their one-year-old daughter in her lap, and their other four-year-old daughter was also seated in the car. Their car was struck by an automobile owned by another defendant-one and driven by another defendant-two, allegedly, in a reckless manner and at an excessive speed (car accident or auto accident). The mother suffered a fractured clavicle in the collision, the father sustained a broken finger, and the four-year-old daughter suffered abdominal injuries. Their one-year-old daughter died a few hours after the accident as a result of her various, severe injuries, alleged in the complaint to have been observed by plaintiffs.

Published on: April 16, 2012

Insurance Company Claims they are not Obligated to Pay in Construction Accident Claim

by Stephen Bilkis

The respondent in the case is the New York State Insurance Fund. The appellants in the case are Merchants Insurance Company of New Hampshire, Inc., and CPN Construction Corporation.

About the Case

The defendant in the case, Merchants Insurance Company of New Hampshire, seeks an inter alia for a judgment that was made by the Kings County Supreme Court which orders that the company is required to defend and indemnify the CPN Construction Corporation in a personal injury suit titled Salinas versus Briarwood Ave. Association. The defendant is appealing the order from the Supreme Court that granted the plaintiffs motion for a summary judgment and declared they are obligated to defend the defendants, CPN Construction Corporation and Building Block Contracting Corporation in the personal injury action.

Published on: April 15, 2012

Car Accident Case Poses Jurisdiction Issues

by Stephen Bilkis

The plaintiff in this case was David Weber. The defendant was Joseph Kowalski.

Case Facts

A car accident occurred on July 15th, 1972. The plaintiff, his wife, and his two young children were traveling in Putnam County when a collision occurred between his vehicle and the one driven by Joseph Kowalski. In 1974, two law suits were initiated in the Dutchess County Supreme Court. The first, in January was filed by Weber and his wife. The second, a month later, was on behalf of their children. The court ordered the two cases consolidated. An application for general preference was made. This was subsequently denied, and the consolidated action was ordered to be transferred to the County Court after 90 days unless the application was renewed, which it was.

Published on: April 14, 2012

Plaintiff Brings Malpractice Action for Poor Treatment in Rehab Facility

by Stephen Bilkis

The plaintiffs in the case are Diane Jakubowski, who is the proposed executrix of the estate of Jan Jakubowski, and Diane Jakubowski individually. The defendants in the case are Huntington Hospital, Nick Fitterman M.D., Cristina Pruzan, M.D., Hilaire Farm Skilled Living and Rehabilitation Center, and Huntington Village Rehabilitation and Nursing.

Plaintiff’s Complaint

A New York Injury Lawyer said the initial complaint made by the plaintiff was filed on December 3, 2010. The complaint asserts a cause of action for medical malpractice towards each of the defendants. This cause of action asserts that beginning on or around June 3rd, and continuing through the course of treatment Jan Jakubowski was a patient of Nick Fitterman M.D. and Cristina Pruzan and they both failed to care for him properly, which caused him to sustain severe and serious injuries and further complications. A New York Injury Lawyer said at this time Jan Jakubowski was also a patient of Hilairic Farm Skilled Living and Rehabilitation and Huntington Village Rehabilitation. A second cause of action in the complaint is for lack of informed consent towards each of the defendants. The third cause of action in the complaint is premised on the negligent hiring and supervision of Huntington Hospital, Huntington Village Rehabilitation, and Hilaire Farm Skilled Living and Rehabilitation Center. The fourth cause of action is for loss of services on behalf of Diane Jakubowski, spouse of the deceased, Jan Jakubowski.