Long Island

Published on: May 23, 2012

Woman Falls in New York Deli, Court Grants Summary Judgement to Defense as Plaintiff Failed to Meet Burden of Proof

by Stephen Bilkis

On March 26, 2009, a woman was leaving a deli located in her neighborhood. She had frequented the deli two or three times a week for ten years. On this date, as she left the deli, the heel of her shoe slipped into a crack that was concealed beneath the entryway mat and stuck there causing her to fall. She stated that she was injured in the slip and falland that she believes that the deli owners should be liable for her injuries.

The deli owners contend that there was no crack concealed under any mat intentionally or otherwise. A Long Island Personal Injury Lawyer said that they did not create a hazardous situation by placing an entryway mat at that spot, and that they have never had any notice from anyone suggesting that there was a problem with the placement of the mat. The court reviewed the contentions because the deli owners filed a motion for summary judgment releasing them from any liability associated with this case. They maintain that since there is no evidence that they created the problem, or that they were even aware that the problem existed, that the complainant has not met her burden of proof in this case and it should be dismissed.

In New York, according to the statutory law that governs any slip and fall case in which the complainant seeks to be awarded punitive damages because of an injury, they must show that certain criteria have been met. The first criteria that must be met is that there was in fact a hazardous situation. A New York Injury Lawyer said then the complainant must show that the hazardous condition was either caused by the defendants, or the defendants knew or should have known of the existence of the problem. Once the problem is brought to their attention, the defendants have a reasonable time period to correct the problem or to take steps to warn the general public that may be entering or exiting the property that the condition is present. In this case, the defendant contends that there was no hazard. They contend that the only hazard present was the 2 ½ inch high heels that the complainant was wearing that caused her to fall. They maintain that they were never advised of any hazard prior to the woman’s accident.

Published on: May 22, 2012

Woman Slips and Falls in Madison Avenue Office Building

by Stephen Bilkis

On July 26, 2006, at about 11:30 at night, a woman was leaving 335 Madison Avenue where she worked. As she walked across the atrium area, she slipped on a puddle of water that was dripping from an air conditioner vent on the ceiling (slip and fall). She informed the front security attendant that there was water on the floor and that she had slipped and injured herself. However, on the next day, when she returned to work, the water was still there.

It was determined that the water had developed as a result of humidity building up on the vent because the atrium was an area of high humidity. The woman filed a personal injury lawsuit against the janitorial service and the building management for causing the condition that caused her to fall and become injured. In New York, a slip and fall injury case can only be conducted if the victim of the injury can show that the defendants who are named in the suit either caused the hazardous situation, or knew of the situation and did not take steps to rectify it. A New York Injury Lawyer said they can also show that the defendant should have known of the existence of the problem and failed to take steps to rectify the situation in a timely fashion. The defendant must be given time to correct the problem or warn the public that the hazard is present.

In this case, the building management company called their heating and air conditioning manager to testify on their behalf. His first testimony stated that at the time of the accident, the heating and air conditioning system that was located in the building did not possess a fan system to prevent water from condensing on the vents. He stated that after the accident, the equipment was retrofitted to have fans that come on in high humidity situations. However, one year later in court, he testified that the system at the time of the accident had an alarm that would sound when high humidity situations were present. After the alarm sounds, there was a fan that would come on to prevent condensation build up. Because of the testimony that he presented, the building management claimed that they had taken all of the steps that they possibly could to prevent an injury from condensation leakage. Long Island Personal Injury Lawyer said they maintained that it is the responsibility of the janitorial service to ensure that the floors are clean and dry. They requested a summary judgment on their behalf to sever them from the lawsuit.

Published on: May 21, 2012

NY Appellate Court Discussed Premises Liability in Slip and Fall Case

by Stephen Bilkis

Situations that involve ice and snow are expectations for life in New York. Slip and fallaccidents are common place. In order for a person to receive compensation for a personal injury due to a slip and fall accident that is the result of ice and snow, there are several requirements that must be met. These requirements are laid out to protect innocent property owners from frivolous civil suits. However, when a person has accepted the responsibility to remove snow and ice as a requirement of a lease, then liability may be associated. Without this type of attachment, a person must show that the owner or manager of the property must demonstrate some type of negligence associated with the accident. In order to show negligence, the person who is filing the petition for the legal action must show that the property owner or manager had notice of the condition that poses the hazard. They must also show that the property owner or manager refused either through intent or neglect to take action to correct the problem.

A New York Injury Lawyer said that discussed one situation that happened on December 12, 2005, a man left his job at 5:30 p.m. to go home on the subway. On his way to the subway, he crossed over an automobile service station’s driveway. As he was walking over the driveway, he stepped on a large patch of ice that completely covered the width of the driveway. He was injured and filed suit against the property owner and the person who leased the property for his business. During the suit, the property owner filed a petition for summary judgment asking to be removed from the suit based on a contractual agreement with the man who leased the property. The agreement was a written contract that clearly stated that the tenant would be responsible for all snow and ice removal on the property during the term of his lease.

The Supreme Court granted the summary judgment in favor of the property owner based on the contractual agreement that freed him from any liability associated with ice or snow on the property. The tenant then produced documentation demonstrating that he and his employees had removed any snow or ice that was on the property some three days prior to the accident. The petitioner brought forth meteorological reports showing that snow and ice had fallen for some time three days prior to his accident. A Long Island Personal Injury Lawyer said that there was ample opportunity for the tenant to be made aware of the ice sheet that was some three inches thick at the time of the accident. Since there was very little chance that in that time, the tenant had not been notified of the sheet of ice, the petitioner claims that his lack of action was negligent because it was only a matter of time before someone was injured in that area.

Published on: May 20, 2012

Court Suspects Shaken Baby Syndrome Involved

by Stephen Bilkis

Children are precious. In our society, we view children as precious and irreplaceable. Unfortunately, not all people appreciate the responsibility that comes with delivering children into the world. A New York Injury Lawyer said it is heartbreaking to learn of the tragedies that befall some children. In one case, that was heard by the Family Court in Washington County on December 10, 2008, a seventeen year old mother was charged with neglecting and abusing her two month old infant daughter. The girl became pregnant by an older boy when she was in high school. She delivered the baby and returned to school. Care of the baby was shared between her family, her father’s girlfriend, the father’s family, and the father. The mother had at first lived with her own mother while she was expecting the baby, but when a fight broke out between them that involved the mother’s mother physically assaulting her, she returned to her father’s house.

The mother still lived at home with her father and his fiancé. The father lives with his parents. The infant lives primarily with the mother and her father and her father’s fiancé. The child is shuffled between the two families throughout the day. The child’s father often drives the child’s mother to school or picks her up from school to transfer the child. On January 30, 2008, the father of the child collected the mother from school and they both took the infant to her well-baby check-up where she received two vaccinations in each leg. That day and into the evening hours, the baby was restless and fussy. The mother later testified that the baby often had trembling episodes that sometimes lasted for an hour. She stated that the baby would become limp or vague as if she had just drifted off somewhere. The next two days were spent primarily with the mother since there was a heavy snowfall that kept the mother out of school for the next two days.

On Friday following the shots on Wednesday, the mother’s father took her to the Glens Falls Hospital to have an interview for a job. The baby stayed in the car with her grandfather while her mother went in for the interview. By this time, according to the mother, the child had exhibited a fever, fussy behavior, vomiting, and lethargy which the mother states she had associated with the vaccinations. The grandfather did not notice anything wrong with the child in the 45 minutes that they waited in the hospital parking lot in spite of the fact that he is a medical doctor. Following the interview, the mother returned to her boyfriend’s house with the child. The mother and father of the child, left the baby with his parents and went out for the evening to the fire department where the baby’s father volunteers. They returned to the boyfriend’s house at around 10:30 at night. When they got there, they noticed that the baby had begun to projectile vomit and looked like she was having seizures. They woke up the baby’s father’s mother who drove them to the emergency room with the child.

Published on: May 17, 2012

Plaintiff Files Against Contractor and Property Owner for Slip and Fall in NY Appellate Court

by Stephen Bilkis

A general contractor was hired by a tenant of a building in Manhattan. The project was to install duct work into the intake air duct down in a shaft below street level in front of the building. A New York Injury Lawyer said the general contractor hired an air conditioning contractor to install the duct work at the job site. The air conditioning contractor subcontracted out its work to the metal sheet contractor.

The complainant was employed by the metal sheet contractor as a journeyman sheet metal worker, whose responsibilities were to hang and install duct work through the supervision of the complainant’s foreman. On November 9, 2004, the complainant and his foreman went to the building in order to install a large piece of prefabricated duct work, known as gooseneck duct, below street level. According to the complainant, the gooseneck duct was the size of a car and was approximately six feet long, six feet wide, and five feet tall, and weighed between 110 and 125 pounds. The site where the gooseneck duct was to be placed was located below a series of about 40 metal grates that were in place on the ground. Each grate measure approximately two feet by four feet, and this grating covered an area of the ground measuring approximately 12 feet by 8 feet. The vault below the grating was approximately 15 feet deep.

In order to install the gooseneck duct below ground, the grating on the street level needed to be opened. The gooseneck duct was to be lowered through an opening in the grates in order to be installed below them.

Published on: May 9, 2012

New York Appellate Court Hears Slip and Fall Case at Construction Site

by Stephen Bilkis

On December 7, 2006, a bricklayer was working on a scaffold more than 20 feet off of the ground. A New York Injury Lawyer said it was late in the day and the bricklayer maintains that he needed to use the bathroom. He informed his foreman and requested permission to lower the scaffold. He had lowered the scaffold on previous occasions so that he could use the bathroom and the foreman had not had an issue with it. However, the complainant advised that on this particular date, when he asked permission to lower the scaffold, the foreman told him that it was too late in the day and that it would put them behind on the job. He told the bricklayer to use the materials basket and have the helper lower him down in it.

The materials basket is a canvas basket that is used to raise and lower tools when they are needed. The helper told the foreman that it would not be a good idea, but the foreman ignored him. The bricklayer got into the canvas basket and the helper began to lower him to the ground. A Nassau County Personal Injury Lawyer said he was lowered about one half of a building story before the ropes gave way and the basket fell two stories to the ground below. The bricklayer was wearing a safety harness that was attached to the scaffolding, but it did not stop his fall. He sustained significant injury in the fall and filed a lawsuit against the construction company and the foreman.

This lawsuit is based on the fact that the foreman used negligence in insisting that the bricklayer use the materials basket to get to the ground to go to the bathroom rather than lowering the scaffold. This is a clearly dangerous practice and one that a reasonable man would consider hazardous. The construction company foreman disagreed.

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: April 24, 2012

Plaintiff Brings Medical Malpractice Claim for Injury that Ended in Abortion

by Stephen Bilkis

On 27 December 1971, a woman (the mother) underwent an abortion at a hospital during the course of which her uterus was perforated.

In June of 1973, she commenced a medical malpracticeaction which was ultimately settled in June of 1979 for $175,000.

On 3 June 1976, four years after the alleged malpractice and three years before it was settled, the infant plaintiff was born to the woman.

Published on: April 23, 2012

Appellant Contends Wrongful Eviction, NY Appellate Court Enters Dismissal of Action Except for Single Cause of Action

by Stephen Bilkis

The appellant in this case was Mamie R. Jemison, while the respondent was Grantley E. Crichlow.

CPLR 215(1)

A key factor in the case is that CPLR 215(1) states that when an action is brought against a sheriff as a result of an action or lack of an action performed in the official capacity of that office, that the action must start within a year of the accrual of the cause of that action (or omission of fulfillment of his duty). A New York Injury Lawyer said there is an exception provided for within CPLR 215(1), but it does not apply in this case. The plaintiffs in this case assert that Grantley E. Crichlow is not covered by the terms of CPLR 215(1) or two reasons. The assertion is that it does not apply to City Marshals. The second is that the year-long statute of limitations is not applicable when allegations of malevolent misconduct or allegations of intentional misconduct are the cause of the initiation of the action.

Published on: April 22, 2012

Infant Born With Impaired Eye Sight Due to Medical Malpractice

by Stephen Bilkis

On 2 January 2004, infant-plaintiff’s mother first presented to defendant-doctor for prenatal care. The defendant-doctor determined that the mother’s estimated delivery date was 10 July 2004.

On 25 February 2004, an ultrasound was performed, which revealed that the fetus’ arithmetic ultrasound age was identical to its gestational age, as well as average measurements for weight, head size, abdominal circumference, and femur length.

A New York Injury Lawyer said on 24 April 2004, a second sonogram was again normal in all respects.