Long Island Category Archives — New York Personal Injury Lawyer Blog 24/7 Published by New York Personal Injury Attorney

Published on: July 23, 2012

Did an airline’s negligence result in a dangerous condition on a jet bridge? – Guntur v. Jetblue Airways Corp., 2011 NY Slip Op 32615 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., 2011)

by Stephen Bilkis

In this slip and fall case, the issue is whether an airline caused the hazardous condition or had notice of the hazardous condition that led to the plaintiff’s injuries.

Plaintiff Guntur was scheduled to fly from Logan Airport in Boston to New York. While she was in the restroom, her name was called for boarding. She hurried back to the gate and down the jet bridge as she did not want to miss the flight. She was the last to board the plane. As she neared the portion of the jet bridge that connected with the door of the airplane, Guntur slipped and fell. She immediately looked at the area where she fell and noticed that there was icy, wet dirt. Guntur filed a lawsuit against Jetblue to recover damages for the injuries she suffered due to her fall that was caused by Jetblue’s negligence.

The Airport Operations Lead Officer for the airline testified that the airplane was regularly cleaned. On icy or rainy days, the airplane was cleaned not only by the cleaning crew but the flight attendants check the jet bridge for any water or snow accumulation. The employees have a broom and mop handy. They also have a carpet that they lay so that the passengers can walk on a dry surface. The flight attendants are also trained to always check the entrance of the plane. They are trained to use handy paper towels to pat the area dry so that the passengers will walk onto the plane on a dry surface.

Published on: July 18, 2012

Plaintiff fails to rebut defendant’s prima facie showing that it did not cause or know about the hazard that led to plaintiff’s injury – Reece v. City of N.Y., 2010 NY Slip Op 31655 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., 2010)

by Stephen Bilkis

In Reece v. City of N.Y., the court considered the question of what the plaintiff must show to prove that a defendant had sufficient notice of a hazard to be liable for injuries caused by the presence of that hazard.

As Reece, the plaintiff, stepped on the curb at the corner of Water and Wall Streets in Manhattan, she slipped and fell on a blob of grease and suffered an injury. Alliance, a not-for-profit business improvement district organization, was responsible for cleaning the sidewalk at the location of the accident. Alliance contracted the cleaning to Onesource. Reece filed a personal injury claim against Alliance, Onesource, and the City of New York.

The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment asking that the complaint against all of them be dismissed. Under New York law, the burden is on the defendant to prove that they are entitled to summary judgement. This means that the defendant must make a prima facie showing that it did not cause the dangerous condition that led to the plaintiff’s injuries, and that it did not have actual or constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition. If the defendant does not make a prima facie showing then the court will deny its motion for summary judgement dismal of the case.

Published on: July 16, 2012

NY Appellate Court Decides if Hazardous Condition Present with Slip and Fall

by Stephen Bilkis

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: July 15, 2012

Plaintiff seeks to use the Noseworthy doctrine in order to lower his burden of proof in a slip and fall case – Dolnick v. Borders Group, Inc., 2009 NY Slip Op 30538(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 3/9/2009)

by Stephen Bilkis

Plaintiff Dolnick filed a personal injury lawsuit against defendant bookstore Borders Group for an injury suffered by his father at the Borders location in Columbus Circle. The defendant moved for summary judgement to dismiss the case because the victim had passed away, and the plaintiff had not witnessed the accident. The court had to determine if the defendant met its burden of showing that the plaintiff’s claim has no merit.

In May 2004, plaintiff’s father fell in the defendant’s bookstore, and as a result suffered an open ankle fracture. The following year, in March 2005, the injured victim died from an unrelated cause. The plaintiff, who is the administrator of the estate of his deceased father, initiated the personal injury lawsuit against defendant Borders after his father’s death. The defendant filed a motion for summary judgement dismissing the claim.

When a defendant files a motion for summary judgement dismissing a claim, the defendant has the burden of presenting a prima facie case that it did not cause the hazard that resulted in the victim’s injury and that it did not have real or constructive knowledge of the hazardous condition. Once the defendant establishes a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the plaintiff.

Published on: July 14, 2012

Defendants request summary judgement in a grocery store slip and fall case- Richards v. Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., 2010 NY Slip Op 33392 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., 2010)

by Stephen Bilkis

In a slip and fall case, the defendant grocery store moves for summary dismissal, arguing that the plaintiff does not have evidence that its negligent created the hazard that led to the plaintiff’s fall, or had real or constructive notice of it.

Plaintiff Richardson was shopping at Waldbaum’s grocery store. Defendant Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company is the parent company. As she walked through the produce section, plaintiff slipped and fell due to a bunched up floor mat and area that was wet due to the vegetable misting machine which sprayed water into the aisle- beyond the area where there were mats and carpets placed to prevent customers from slipping. Based on the injuries suffered when she slipped and fell, the plaintiff filed a personal injury lawsuit against the defendant. Defendant filed a motion for summary judgement dismissing the case.

Under New York law, the defendant will be entitled to summary judgement if it can make a prima facie showing that it is entitled to it. This means that the defendant must produce sufficient evidence that there are no material issues of fact. In other words, the defendant must show that the plaintiff does not have a case. If the defendant makes a prima facie showing, then the burden shifts to the plaintiff. The plaintiff must show that there is an issue of material fact that would preclude summary judgement.

Published on: July 5, 2012

New York Appellate Court Rules in Favor of Physician, Holding Access to Medical Records is Authorized

by Stephen Bilkis

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: June 15, 2012

Plaintiff Sues for Trip and Fall Due to Sidewalk Defect

by Stephen Bilkis

On 11 October 2006, plaintiff was caused to trip and fallupon a defect in the sidewalk in front of 14 Willow Place, Brooklyn, property owned by defendant.

Plaintiff, together with her husband, has filed a verified complaint against defendant and the City of New York on the ground of the aforesaid trip and fall.

The alleged defect is described as “a raised edge of a sidewalk concrete flag and the raised portion of the flag which was located in the pedestrian portion of the sidewalk located approximately 140 feet south of the south curb of Joralemon Street and approximately 2.5 to 3 feet west of the west curb of Willow Place and next to a large tree situated next to the said curb of Willow Place in front of premises 14 Willow Place, Brooklyn, New York, which sidewalk flag was protruding up approximately 3 inches from the rest of the walk on the date concerned.

Published on: June 4, 2012

Plaintiff Brings Action for Slip and Fall in Laundry Room, Due to Lack of Evidence Court Finds for Defendant

by Stephen Bilkis

In cases that involve a personal injury complaint, it is imperative that the person who is filing the complaint is able to show that the injury occurred as the result of a negligence on the part of the property owner or manager where the incident occurred. A New York Injury Lawyer said the victim cannot show that the injury was the result of some type of negligence, then there is no case to take to trial. In most cases, the defendant who is the owner or manager of the property will request a summary judgment. A summary judgment is one that is made by the court in favor of one party or the other.

A summary judgment is given by the court when one side can either show that the case has no legal basis to be continued or if the opposing party has failed to show the elements necessary to create a triable question of fact. In some cases, both sides may request summary judgments for different reasons against the other. Whenever a party requests a summary judgment, the Supreme Court of the State of New York is responsible for determining if a summary judgment is reasonable under the circumstances.

An example of a request for a summary judgment may be shown in several cases; however, there is one case from Hempstead, New York that is an excellent example. On September 28, 2008, a tenant of the apartment building located at 67 Terrace Avenue stated that she entered the laundry room in her building to do her laundry. The laundry room is located on the same floor as her apartment and she uses it on a regular basis. She stated that as she was washing her clothes and moving them from the washer to the dryer, she slipped on soapy water (slip and fall) that was leaking from the overflow tube of one of the washing machines.

Published on: May 26, 2012

Plaintiff Sues for Slip and Fall Accident on Stairs, Appellate Court Denies Defendant’s Summary Judgement Motion

by Stephen Bilkis

On 1 January 2006 at approximately 5:30 pm at the defendant’s home, a slip and fallaccident on a stairs has occurred. Thus, a personal injury action arose.

The plaintiff is the father of the defendant and on the date of the incident the plaintiff was watching the defendants’ children.

Motion by defendants for an Order granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants, dismissing plaintiff’s complaint, on the basis that plaintiff has failed to establish a prima facie cause of negligence as and against said defendants, is determined as hereinafter provided.

Published on: May 24, 2012

Woman Sues Grocery Store for Injuries, Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgement Denied as Court Says They are Triable Issues of Fact

by Stephen Bilkis

On April 30, 2007 at about 9:15 in the evening, a woman was doing her grocery shopping at the market located at 1050 Willis Avenue, Albertson, New York. She was browsing the fruit and vegetables in the produce section when the vegetable misting machine came on. The misting units were improperly calibrated causing them to spray water out onto the floor of the aisle where the woman was walking. She slipped on the water in the aisle and her foot hit a bunched up area of the mat that was set up to eliminate the risk of wet floor slippage. Because the mat was bunched up, the wet floor was not covered. According to the woman, that was the proximate cause of her slip and fallinjury.

The supermarket owner claimed that the manager had just walked through the produce aisle moments before the woman was injured and did not notice any water or a bunched up mat. The injured woman claimed that the slip into the bunched up mat caused her foot to become stuck in the mat when she fell exacerbating her injury. The market owner denies the allegations. The woman testified that she had been in the produce department for about ten to fifteen minutes and that she had walked past that area herself and not noticed the water or the carpet. It was not until she remembered that she had forgotten something and returned to the area around the snap peas that she slipped and her foot got stuck in the mat.

The market owner contends that the manager had checked the area moments prior to the accident and had not seen any hazard. The woman had been in the area of the accident for fifteen minutes prior to her accident and did not report any hazard to the store. The manager contends that they were never notified that there was a hazardous condition and were therefore unable to prevent the injury that occurred. A New York Injury Lawyer said the manager who is specifically assigned to the produce section testified that he has worked in that area for several years and that he has never seen the vegetable misters dampen the mats. He stated that he has never seen the mats bunch up either. He also testified that he has never received a complaint of mats bunching or water pooling on the floor.