Articles Posted in Manhattan

Published on:

by

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.

Continue reading

Published on:

by

On October 8, 2005, an elderly woman got off of the elevator in her apartment building and walked toward the mailroom to collect her mail from her mailbox. It was a day of heavy rain and the doorman had been mopping the area to try to keep standing water out of the lobby just two minutes prior to the woman getting off of the elevator. A New York Injury Lawyer said the woman slipped on the wet floor exactly two minutes after the doorman had mopped it. She sustained severe injuries and had to be taken to the hospital for treatment. She filed a lawsuit against the condominium owners and the management company.

In New York, if a person has a slip and fall accident, they must prove certain elements existed in order to recover any damages. The person who fell must show that the owner of the property or the management company that maintains the property created the hazardous condition that caused the fall (slip and fall). They must show that the conditions existed and that the owner or manager was aware of the existence of the hazard and did not take steps to correct the problem. Alternatively, they may show that the problem existed for such a long time that the owner or manager should have known of the existence of the problem, but still did not take steps to correct the problem or warn the public of the problem.

The woman maintained in her action that the doorman saw her exit the elevator, he could have warned her that the floor was wet, but he did not. There were no signs that warned people walking through the lobby that the floor was wet. The floor was marble and known to become very slick when it was wet. The owners and the property manager should have known that on rainy days, the marble floor would become slippery because of water being tracked in on people’s shoes. They could have taken steps by placing mats through the lobby to prevent people from falling on the hard surface.

Continue reading

Published on:

by

A woman went to a fast-food burger joint and ate there. After finishing her meal, she went to use the bathroom. She waited a while to use the bathroom as another lady was still using the bathroom when she got there. When she entered the bathroom, as she passed the sink to go to the toilet, she had a slip and fall because of a puddle of water.

After her slip and fall, she cleaned up herself and limped out of the bathroom. As she left, she saw a yellow caution (wet floor) sign outside the bathroom area. The sign was folded near the wall of the men’s bathroom.

She reported her slip and fall to the store manager. From the store manager the lady learned that the bathroom had just been mopped not half an hour before her slip and fall. She also learned that there was no regularly scheduled cleaning of the bathrooms; any regularly scheduled inspection of the bathrooms. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the store manager informed her that he had not received any information that a puddle of water existed near the sink in the ladies’ bathroom.

Continue reading

Published on:

by

A dad came to watch his son play baseball in the ball field of North Hempstead. He was walking to the bleachers when he had a slip and fall. His foot fell into a hole that had a water main valve. The dad claimed that the hole may have had a cover but that it had slid off when he stepped on it or, the cover did not fully cover the hole. He claims to have sustained personal injury as a result of the slip and fall.

The ball field was maintained by the town of North Hempstead. The town hired a team of groundskeepers whose job was to inspect the ball field and to maintain it. Records produced by the town government show that on the morning of May 14, 2007, the groundskeepers inspected the ball field and did not see any cover of any water main valve as loose or as having slid off or missing. There were no reports of any uncovered holes around the ball field. There was no report or notice of any hole around the ball field.

The Town of Hempstead moved for summary dismissal of the cause of action filed by the Dad on the ground that there was no proof that the Town was negligent; that its negligence created or exacerbated the dangerous condition claimed by the Dad to have caused his slip and fall or his injury. There was no proof offered that would show that the Town of Hempstead had constructive or actual notice of any dangerous condition which they negligently ignored.

Continue reading

Published on:

by

On 13 April 1992, three month old baby boy (the baby) was found by his mother, respondent to have an injured leg. Respondents, the mother and father, immediately took the baby to St. Luke’s Hospital, where it was discovered that the child’s tibia was fractured. An investigation was commenced which resulted in the within petition charging respondents with abuse and neglect of both the father and his sister.

A New York Injury Lawyer said the fact finding hearing, the caseworker testified that she first interviewed respondents at their home on 15 April 1992, at which time they informed her that the father had informed the mother at the hospital that, earlier in the day on which the baby’s injury had been discovered, he had been playing with the child and had accidentally fallen on him. The mother informed the caseworker that she had not told the hospital personnel how the incident had occurred because she did not find out about it until after the child was admitted.

After the aforesaid interview, further investigation was undertaken by the hospital which revealed that the child had two healed fractures, one of the rib and one of the skull. Two days later, after learning of the infant’s healed fractures, the caseworker interviewed the respondents again, at which time she informed them that the child had prior injuries and asked them if they could explain them. They stated that they had no specific explanation for the rib fracture but that maybe the child had fallen off the bed. The only explanation they proffered for his fractured skull (head injury) was the possibility that he had knocked his head against a hair dryer which they had placed in his crib hoping that its noise would stop his crying. The mother also mentioned that she did not know how the child had been hurt because she had been ill after his birth and had not been caring for him at that time. She also stated that she felt that the father was rough in his treatment of the baby and that she had told him not to play so roughly with the child. The father admitted that he “played rough” with the child, including holding him high in the air and shaking him.

Continue reading

Published on:

by

On 16 December 1999, a woman gave birth to a baby boy at a hospital. The infant, a full-term baby, was born alive. A New York Injury Lawyer said that shortly after the delivery, a nurse allegedly negligently used a vacuum extractor on the infant, which deprived him of oxygen and caused his death.

On 14 January 2002, plaintiff, as administrator of the estate of the deceased infant, commenced the instant action claiming that defendants negligently caused the infant to asphyxiate and die. The mother was originally a party to the action and claimed pain and suffering due to defendants’ negligence.

On 19 December 2002, the court granted plaintiff leave to amend his complaint to include the herein plaintiff, as administrator of the infant’s estate. The mother also voluntarily discontinued her claims because she had no individual claims for pain and suffering.

Continue reading

Published on:

by

These are two consolidated cases of pregnant women who gave birth to stillborn babies because of the medical malpractice and negligence of their obstetricians.

A New York Injury Lawyer said in the first case, the woman was under the care of an obstetrician and a nurse-midwife. At 1:45 am. Of September 25, 1994, the pregnant woman called the nurse-midwife to inform them that her bag of waters had broken and that there was a lot of blood. They were instructed to go to the birth center.

The couple arrived at 3:00 a.m. at the birth center and while there, she expelled some more blood. The pregnant lady wondered aloud to the nurse-midwife if she should go to the hospital across the street for emergency treatment. The nurse-midwife called her obstetrician who ordered that the pregnant lady be transported to a hospital in Manhattan.

Continue reading

Published on:

by

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.

Continue reading

Published on:

by

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.

Continue reading

Published on:

by

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.

Continue reading

Contact Information