Articles Posted in Manhattan

Published on:

The plaintiff in the case is Willie B. Sosa. The defendants in the case are Lorenzo Hines, Eddie Meyers, Harold Hall, and the Estate of Dessie Ree Meyers. The judge in the case is Arthur M. Schack.

About the Case

This is a case that involves a real estate dispute. The real estate in question is the property located at 363 Monroe Street, in Brooklyn, New York. A New York Injury Lawyer said the plaintiff moves to show cause for three branches of relief in the case. The first branch of relief is to stay the thirty-day notice of termination which is dated the 27th of April, 2006. The plaintiff states that this notice violates the notice requirements for ending a tenancy.

Published on:

A woman was found to be pregnant and she went for an ultrasound. It was determined that she was carrying twins. The pregnant woman opted for a home birth instead of giving birth at a hospital. She wanted to be assisted by a midwife and nurses.

A New York Injury Lawyer said she nurse/midwife who had her own clinic and lying-in clinic diagnosed one of the twins to have a weak heart sound: the baby’s heart rate decelerated at times. The nurse/midwife recommended that a follow-up sonogram be done at a hospital. The hospital found that the baby’s heart rate had already stabilized. The woman wanted to give birth at the hospital but she also wanted to be assisted in the birth by her own nurse/midwife. The doctors at the hospital told her that her nurse/midwife did not have credentials or birthing privileges at their hospital. They told her that if she were to decide to give birth at the hospital, she would be cared for by one of the obstetricians on their staff.

The woman left and her pregnancy progressed. She stuck it out under the care of the nurse/midwife. She gave birth at her home on July 1, 2004. One of her twin babies was stillborn. The death certificate as filled out by the nurse/midwife listed the cause of death as undetermined.

Published on:

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:

This case is being heard in the Queens County Supreme Court. The case involves Sonia Coto, etc. as the plaintiff and Mary Immaculate Hospital as the defendant. The attorney for the plaintiff is Christopher J. Albee. The attorney for the defendant is Jodi Ritter. The judge for the case is Phyllis Orlikoff Flug.

Case

A New York Injury Lawyer said the plaintiff is seeking damages that are related to the defendant failing to promptly notify her when her Roger Coto, her brother, died. The defendant is moving for a summary judgment in the case stated that the efforts they made in order to locate the decedent’s relatives were sufficient and reasonable in relation to the situation and that the plaintiff did not suffer emotional harm from the delay of notification or alternatively any emotional harm suffered by the plaintiff was not caused by the defendant Mary Immaculate Hospital.

Published on:

This case is being heard in the Queens County Supreme Court in the state of New York. The plaintiff of the case is Judy Fernandez. The defendant in the case is the St. John’s Queens Hospital, et al. A New York Injury Lawyer said the judge overseeing the case is the honorable James P. Dollard.

Case

This is an action to recover damages for medical malpracticeallegedly performed by the defendant Metropolitan Child Neurology, P.C. and Doctor Steven G. Pavlakis. The move is for a Frye versus United States hearing or to dismiss the action. Defendant, Dr. Raul Miquez makes a cross motion for the same relief. The plaintiffs have issued a cross motion for a Frye hearing in regard to the testimony of Dr. Robert A. Zimmerman, expert witness for the defendant as well as the testimony of Dr. Alfred J. Spiro. As an alternative the plaintiffs preclude that the testimony of these two doctors is unsupported by published articles, and lacks prevailing medical and scientific thought.

Published on:

This case is being heard in the Supreme Court of the State of New York in New York County. The case involves the matter of an Application of MVAIC to vacate an Arbitration Award. MVAIC is the petitioner of the case. The respondents in the case are Geico Insurance Company, New York City East-West Acupuncture, and PC A/A/O Chun Hong Li. The Judge overseeing the case is Joan B. Lobis.

Case

The petitioner, MVAIC or Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation, moves for an order to vacate an order that was awarded by the Lower Arbitrator and affirmed by the Master Arbitrator. The petitioner seeks an entry of judgment on their behalf that dismisses the case with prejudice. The respondents are currently in default as they have not submitted any opposition papers in this case.

Published on:

The Facts:

A New York Injury Lawyer said between 9 and 11 of November 1982, defendants allegedly failed to correctly and properly assess the significance of an ultrasound report and an amniocentesis test and permitted plaintiff to proceed beyond full term of her pregnancy, thereby causing the plaintiff’s child to be born on 30 November 1982 with severe and permanent injuries, birth injuries.

On 23 November 1992, plaintiff files a complaint for medical malpracticeaction stemming from defendants’ prenatal treatment of her.

Published on:

Cases of personal injury involve certain subtleties of the law that must be met in order for the complainant to have a case against the building or facility where the injury occurred. First of all, there must be an injury. A New York Injury Lawyer said if a complainant files a complaint against a company because they fell, they must show that they were injured in some way by that fall. They must also be able to show that the building owner or manager had prior knowledge that a hazardous situation existed at that location at a time prior to the accident for them to have taken steps to prevent the accident from happening. In most cases, some evidence that there was a defect or hazardous situation that most of the people who used that area were aware of and that they had complained to the building management about usually proves this portion of the law. That proof is provided by the complainant in most cases in the form of incident reports, memos, emails, or other evidence that may show that the hazard was there and that the property management knew that it was there, but had not taken steps to repair it.

In one case, which occurred at 200 Park Avenue in Manhattan, one of the janitors was responsible for mopping the floor of the lobby where a woman slipped on some spilled liquid on the floor of the lobby (skip and fall). She was injured and treated. She then filed suit against the building management because she claims that they were liable for the situation. She claimed that the floor cleaning rotation was not notated in reference to how often or even when the lobby would be checked for spills or other debris. Since there was no one responsible for checking the floors, she contends that her accident was the responsibility of the building maintenance department.

The building management filed a motion in Queens County Civil Court for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint and all other claims against them in this case because they felt that the complainant had not made a case that they had been notified of a problem prior to the accident. The Civil Court denied their motion and they filed an appeal in the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department. A Manhattan Personal Injury Lawyer said the appeal was reviewed, and decided on February 28, 2007. The Supreme Court determined that the building management had failed to show that they should get a summary judgment on the case since there were no records presented that demonstrated a process by which the lobby floor was checked or monitored for hazardous situations. The Supreme Court clearly felt that this was a triable issue of fact in that they upheld the decision of the Civil Court and denied the summary motion request of the property management.

Published on:

On September 19, 1974, at 11:30 in the evening, a 41 year-old woman was admitted into the maternity ward at the hospital where she worked as a board certified physician, to deliver her second child. A New York Injury Lawyer said the woman was monitored upon her arrival by a nurse who determined that the infant was at -2 station and that his heart rate was 140 and regular. Her obstetrician was notified of her labor and advised that he would drive in to the hospital immediately. The nurse continued to monitor her labor. At 1:35 a.m. the nurse notified the obstetrician that the mother’s contractions were arriving at three-minute intervals and that the infant’s heart rate was 140 and regular. The obstetrician was not yet at the hospital, he prescribed several drugs to be administered to the mother over the telephone. One of those prescribed drugs was Demerol, a powerful painkiller.

The obstetrician arrived at the hospital at two in the morning. Her checked the woman and found that she was in her second stage of labor. At that point, the doctor noticed that the contractions had slowed and were four minutes apart. The woman had just been given the Demerol. He noted that the infant was at station -2. Station -2 means that the infant’s head is two centimeters above the pelvic spines that form the entrance to the birth canal. The obstetrician did not order an x-ray to determine if the infant’s head would fit through the woman’s pelvic spines. He ordered a Pitocin drip to speed labor. He testified in court that he had ordered the Pitocin because the labor had slowed from three minutes between contractions, to four minutes between contractions.

There was medical testimony at trial that Pitocin can cause the umbilical cord of the infant to be squeezed by the stronger contractions that it produces which can block the flow of blood and oxygen to the baby. A Nassau County Personal Injury Lawyer the law requires that if a physician prescribes Pitocin during a delivery, they must monitor the mother and child constantly while the drip is in progress. This monitoring is to ensure that the oxygen supply to the baby is not cut off which would cause a birth injury including cerebral palsy. The Pitocin drip in this case was on for more than an hour following the prescription to the actual delivery of the infant. According to the hospital delivery records, the Pitocin immediately increased the labor contractions to between two and three minutes apart and moderate in strength. At 2:30 a.m. the fetal heart rate was 136. All of the medical chart entries regarding this delivery were made by the nurse who stated that she was monitoring the woman every ten minutes, but that she had to leave the room several times to get items that would be needed for the delivery of the child.

Published on:

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.

Contact Information