The plaintiff in the case is Tower Insurance Company of New York. The defendants in the case are Jose Reyes and Camille Khan.
Case History
A New York Injury Lawyer said the case is a declaratory judgment action. The plaintiff, Tower Insurance Company of New York, is seeking a judgment to declare that it does not have a duty to indemnify or defend the defendant in a personal injury action that is titled Reyes versus Khan.
Kings County Personal Injury 143
The plaintiffs in the case are Progressive Max Insurance Company, Progressive Preferred Insurance Company, and Progressive Specialty Insurance Company. There are several defendants in the case, claims one through eight individual defendants.
Case Results The plaintiffs have an entry of default against the defendants, from groups one through eight of the individual defendants in the case. The motion by the plaintiffs is pursuant of CPLR 3215(a). The plaintiff has proven jurisdiction by annexing copies of the affidavits of service from the summons and the complaints that have been made by the defendants. These affidavits prove the defendants default in the affirmation of counsel. The plaintiff issues a supporting affidavit to prove these claims.
The plaintiffs in the case are Louis V. Greco individually and as the Trustee for the Gamcrefk Trust. The defendants in the case are Ulmer & Berne L.L.P.
Case History
The defendants in the case, Ulmer & Berne, Jeffrey S. Dunlap, Esq., and Christopher P. Fisher, Esq., move for an order that dismisses the complaints by the plaintiffs both individually and as the trustee for the Gamcrefk Trust on the basis of lack of personal jurisdiction and dismissing the complaint made by the plaintiff based on the expiration of the statute of limitations.
The plaintiff in the case is Alex Grunberger. The defendant in the case is S & Z Service Station Inc.
Case History
The defendant has filed a motion on August 10, 2009 for an order that grants a summary judgment in the case. A New York Injury Lawyer said the summary judgment requested is in favor of the defendant finding they owe no liability to the plaintiff, Alex Grunberger.
The plaintiffs in the case are Roseann Caracciolo individually and Roseann Caracciolo as the proposed administrator of the assets of her late husband, Pasquale. The defendants in the case are Ralph Peluso, M.D., Mladen Solar, M.D., The Staten Island University Hospital, the Brooklyn Family Medical Associates, Joseph McGinn, M.D., and Donald McCord, M.D.
The Case
Through the motion that was filed on the 7th of February, 2007, the defendants Donald McCord and Mladen Solar jointly move to discharge the grievance made by the plaintiff based on the fact that the plaintiff lacks the means to sue. By a cross motion that was filed on the 15th of February, 2007, defendants Brooklyn Family Medical Associates, Ralph Peluso, and the Staten Island University Hospital for dismissal of the case based on the same reasons. Defendant Joseph McGinn moves for the same release for the same reasons. According to a New York Injury Lawyer, the plaintiff is against the motions as well as the cross motions of the defendants/movants.
The plaintiffs in the case are Tray Wrap, Inc. The defendants in the case are Pacific Tomato Growers LTD and Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association.
Case History
In this case, the defendant Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association is seeking an order for a summary judgment over the plaintiff in the instant action suit. The defendant declares that a summary judgment is warranted for a number of different reasons.
The respondents in the case are Sandra Greenberg and Myron Greenberg. The respondents are represented by Manuel J. Steinberg, Alfred Joffe, from New York City. The appellant in the case is William De Hart, who is an infant over the age of fourteen years and is represented by Raymond M. De Hart as the guardian ad lien. The appellant is being represented by Manley H. Thaler from Ithaca.
Court Memorandum
In a Kings County Supreme Court action for the recovery of medical expenses and personal injuries as well as loss of services, this is an appeal case from the order that denies a motion for the complaint to be dismissed on the basis of res judicata, from the Rules of Civil Practice, rule number 107, division 4.
The infant plaintiffs, by their natural guardian, and the guardian individually, commenced an action against the defendants Corporation and private individual by the filing of summons and complaint in the office of the County Clerk of Westchester County on 11 October 1995. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the Corporation and the private individual were responsible for the operation and maintenance of certain apartments located in Westchester County, including the apartment in which the infant plaintiffs resided. The complaint alleges that the infant plaintiffs were each “caused to ingest, consume and/or be exposed to lead paint and/or dust which was upon and/or caused, allowed and permitted to chip, peel, fall and/or permeate the premises from the interior walls and portions of said apartment”; that as a result of the infants’ ingestion of these noxious substances, they were severely injured (head injury, deafness, paralysis and the like) and suffered “great physical pain”; that each of the infants “incurred and in the future would necessarily incur further hospital and/or medical expenses in an effort to be cured”; and that the natural guardian had, on account of the injuries to the two infants, “been required to expend various sums of money for extraordinary medical care, consultation, advice, therapy, education, management and treatment of the infants.”
A New York Injury Lawyer said that by virtue of a “notice of lien” dated 2 November 1998, the guardian, as well as the attorneys representing him and the infant plaintiffs, the defendants, and the defendants’ attorneys, were notified that the Commissioner of the Westchester County Department of Social Services (hereinafter the DSS) was asserting a lien in the sum of $132,204.73 to be satisfied out of the proceeds of the settlement noted above. The defendants assert that this was their first notice of any such lien.
The issue here is whether or not the representatives of an infant plaintiff, on whose behalf a settlement of a personal injury action has been reached, may completely defeat enforcement of the Medicaid lien by the simple expedient of declaring that the settlement related solely to the infant’s claim for pain and suffering?
The defendants represented the plaintiff in a personal injury action (hereinafter the personal injury action) arising from injuries (broken boneor back injury and the like) allegedly sustained by the plaintiff on 21 September 2001. In August 2002 the plaintiff obtained a default judgment against one of the defendants in the personal injury action (hereinafter the personal injury defendant). In August 2004, following an inquest on the issue of damages, the Supreme Court entered a judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against the personal injury defendant in the principal sum of $1,400,000 (hereinafter the money judgment).
In May 2005 the plaintiff retained another law firm, to collect on the money judgment. The defendants in this case subsequently signed a “consent to change attorney” form dated 21 March 2006.
A New York Injury Lawyer said that in November 2006 the personal injury defendant moved, inter alia, to vacate the money judgment entered against him on the ground that he had not been properly served with process in the personal injury action. In an order dated 6 June 2007, the Supreme Court, among other things, granted the motion, vacated the money judgment, and dismissed the personal injury action insofar as asserted against the personal injury defendant, with prejudice.
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 fallwas 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.
New York Personal Injury Lawyer Blog 24/7