Long Island

Published on: July 23, 2012

NY Appellate Court Decides if Airline Created a Dangerous Condition

A woman was schedule to fly from Logan Airport in Boston to New York. She was told that the flight will be late so she went to the bathroom. But as she was in the bathroom, her flight was called for boarding. She hurried to make it on time for her flight. She entered the gate and went down the tube to the airplane. She was the last to board the plane. As she neared the portion of the tube which connected with the door of the airplane, she had a slip and fall.

A flight attendant assisted her up and asked her if she was ok. She was immediately given an ice pack for her knee and the flight attendant went on the public address system of the airplane to ask if there was any doctor on the flight. A doctor volunteered to see the lady and gave her first aid.

A New York Injury Lawyer said the lady looked at the area where she had a slip and fall and noticed that there was dirt that was icy and wet on the lip of the tube that met up with the door of the airplane. She filed a suit in damages against the airliner for the personal injury she sustained due to her slip and fall.

Published on: July 18, 2012

NY Appellate Court Grants Summary Judgement for Defense in Slip and Fall Case

by Stephen Bilkis

A woman was walking at the corner of Water and Wall Streets in Manhattan. She was on the crosswalk and as she stepped up onto the curb, She had a slip and fall. When she fell, she tried to get up and to see what caused her slip and fall. She noticed a blob of grease on the sidewalk. The blob of grease was near a pile of garbage, garbage bags and garbage cans standing in a row. The woman noticed that the blob of grease did not trickle or drip from any of the garbage cans or garbage bags but the blob was very near them.

For the injury she sustained, she filed a complaint for damages against the City, against a non-profit district organization and the cleaning crew it had awarded a cleaning contract to. According to the woman, the non-profit district organization had the responsibility of sweeping the sidewalk at the corner of Water and Wall streets and that it had awarded the sweeping job to a cleaning contractor.

A New York Slip and Fall Lawyer said all the defendants: the City, the non-profit district organization and the cleaning contractor all filed motion for summary judgment asking that the complaint against all of them be dismissed on the ground that the complaint failed to state and to offer preliminary proof that: any of the defendants created or caused to be created the dangerous condition of the blob of grease; there is also no allegation or preliminary proof that any of the defendants had actual or constructive notice that a dangerous condition exists or that the defendants had notice of the dangerous condition but failed and refused to remedy the dangerous condition.

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

Slip and Fall Preceeds Death of Victim, Defendant Moves for Summary Judgement in NY Appellate Court

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Injury Lawyer said a man brought a legal action to recover damages for personal injury suffered by his father. The man’s father fell on the opponent’s bookstore. Allegedly due to the opponent’s negligence, the man fell (slip and fall) which resulted an open fracture on the man’s left ankle. Consequently, the man died because of unrelated cause. The man, who became the administrator of the estate of his deceased father, initiated the action after his father’s death.

The owner of the bookstore argue that the man, who did not witness the accident, cannot prove that they were negligent because his claim is based exclusively on what his father told him about the accident, which is hearsay. The man however counters all the evidence submitted by the owner of the bookstore, as it is also hearsay. In addition, certain statements attributed to the man by the owner of the bookstore are barred by the dead man’s rule. The man further argues that he should be held to the reduced standard of proof afforded by the Noseworthy doctrine.

Based on records, the Noseworthy rule in essence is that in a death case, a complainant is not held to as high a degree of proof of the cause of action as where an injured complainant can himself describe the occurrence. Further, a Manhattan Personal Injury Lawyer said the rule therefore is applied when there are no eyewitnesses to the occurrence, and the participant is incapable of testifying either because he is dead or amnesiac.

Published on: July 14, 2012

Defendant Requests Summary Judgement on Slip and Fall, NY Appellate Court Denies

by Stephen Bilkis

A company who operates a chain of supermarket and drugstore filed a motion to grant them a decision without trial and to dismiss the complaint filed against them on the grounds that the complainant had failed to establish a case of negligence. However, the complainants oppose the motion.

The personal injury action arises out of a trip and fallaccident that occurred at one of the supermarket. It is alleged that a woman while in the aisle in front of the fresh vegetable and herbs, happened to trip, slip and fall because of the vegetable misting machine spraying mist onto the aisles and beyond the perimeters of the mat/carpet causing the floors to become wet and causing the woman to slip. The woman sustained injuries from the accident. Summons and verified complaint were served.

A New York Injury Lawyer said the company submitted that they are entitled for a decision without trial as they claim that based upon the sworn testimony of the parties, together with the affidavit of the assistant store manager and the woman’s pleadings, the woman cannot establish that the company created the alleged condition or that they had actual or constructive notice of same. The company states that the woman testified at her examination that she walked in the produce aisle for approximately fifteen minutes prior to her fall and had walked past the exact area where her fall would eventually occur. As the woman walked through the produce department, she remembered that she had forgotten something and walked back to the area of the snap peas. The woman also testified that she did not recall seeing the alleged bunched up mat when she had walked past it earlier.

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.