Car Accidents

Published on: July 22, 2012

Court Determines Liability of Pet Store Owner in Dog Bite Case

A mother took her two children to a pet store so that they can buy pet supplies on January 23, 2006. At that same time, a retired gentleman was also shopping at the same pet store. He had with him his 9 month old Rottweiler puppy. He adopted the puppy from an animal shelter just ten days before the incident.

A New York Injury Lawyer said the retire gentleman had adopted a similar Rottweiler puppy years before from the same animal shelter and he had no problems with that adopted dog. This new dog exhibited a great disposition and the retired gentleman was training with the puppy.

After coming from the animal shelter, the puppy had contact with children. She had visited the pet store before the incident and the Rottweiler puppy had not exhibited any aggressiveness of territorial barking.

Published on: July 19, 2012

Both Sides Bring Summary Judgement Motion for Birth Injury, New York Appellate Court Denies

by Stephen Bilkis

On September 4, 1998, a pregnant woman was admitted to St Charles Hospital with complaints of severe, headaches swollen legs, fatigue and decreased fetal movement. She was promptly transferred to the University Medical Center at Stony Brook, in Stony Brook, New York. She was a lupus patient and had a history of preeclampsia with a prior pregnancy. The doctors at the University Medical Center at Stony Brook, were concerned because she was only at 24 weeks gestation. They administered some steroids in the hope that they could encourage better lung development in the infant in the event that the infant would have to be delivered prematurely.

In 1998, the administration of steroids to encourage lung development was a standard practice. A New York Injury Lawyer said the steroids were delivered in two doses normally. The first dose would be delivered and then the doctors would wait 12 hours before delivering the second dose. Following the second dose, another 12 hours would go by before they would deliver the infant. In the case of this particular woman, the infant was showing signs of fetal distress and lowered heart rate. The doctors made several attempts to determine the exact cause of the issues that the woman and child were suffering before taking any action. The doctor waited one hour in particular so that the father of the child could arrive at the hospital. At this point, the lives of both the mother and the severely premature infant were at risk. Nine hours after arriving at the University Medical Center at Stony Brook, the child was delivered by caesarian section. The infant showed relatively good Apgar scores at the time of delivery. However, within the first few years of birth, he suffered from obvious signs of fetal hypoxia and other issues related to the delay in his delivery.

The hospital maintained that the child was so severely premature, that any issues that he developed were tempered by the fact that they are obvious expectations of a premature infant. They state that the parents were advised that these were possible risks to early delivery at the time that the delivery was done. A Staten Island Personal Injury Lawyer said they also advise that any delays were necessary and within proper treatment guidelines based on the situation. They stated that the fact that the woman suffered from other medical conditions had at first blurred the fact that she was preeclampsic a second time. They contend that most of the delay was an attempt to give the infant as much of the benefit of the steroid as possible, to allow a neonatal specialist to be called in, and to ensure that a team of neonatal intensive care specialists were standing by to help the infant when he was born.

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 15, 2012

Hospital Fails to Notify Next of Kin of Death, Court Denies Summary Judgement Motion

by Stephen Bilkis

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: 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 11, 2012

Defendant Awarded Partial Summary Judgement in Medical Malpractice Action

by Stephen Bilkis

This case is being heard in the Bronx County Supreme Court in the state of New York. The case involves the deceased infant, Kayla Kesse Madison Charles. The plaintiffs are the administrix of the estate of the deceased infant, Dionne Charles and Dionne Charles on her own. The defendants in the case are Doctor Chaisurat Suvannavejh, Doctor, Fergal D. Malone, Doctor Michael J. Orfino, Elizabeth Riley, R.N., Susan Zucchero, R.N., and the Lawrence Hospital Center.

Case Background

The plaintiff on behalf of herself and her deceased daughter is suing the defendants for medical malpractice that resulted in the wrongful death of her daughter. A New York Injury Lawyer said the defendants of the case, Suvannavejh, Zucchero, and the Lawrence Hospital Center all separately move for a summary judgment that dismissed the claims made by the mother in regard to emotional distress, and loss of comfort and affection. Additionally, the defendant Suvannavejh seeks for the claim made by the mother in regard to lost support, services, and protection be dismissed.

Published on: July 9, 2012

Respondents Claim Petitioner in Violation of Public Health Laws

by Stephen Bilkis

The petitioner for this case is Lena Bagels, Inc. The respondent of the case is The City of New York and the New York City Department of Consumer Affairs. The case is being heard in the New York Supreme Court. The judge overseeing the case is Philip G. Minardo.

Case

Lena Bagels operates a corporation and the main place where business occurs is located on Richmond Avenue in Staten Island, New York. The company is authorized by the state to transact business. Lena Bagels was incorporated in 2001. A New York Injury Lawyer said the petitioner, Lena Bagels has been found guilty of selling tobacco products to a minor. The petitioner states that the fine of $3500 is void and requests the renewal of their application for their tobacco license. The petitioner is seeking to annul the recommendation made by Judge Mitchell B. Nisonoff.

Published on: July 8, 2012

Court Maintains Complaint if Friviolous and Lacks Standing

by Stephen Bilkis

This is an interesting case being heard in the Kings County Supreme Court that involves the plaintiff, Christopher-Earl Strunk and a number of defendants. Among the defendants for the case are President Barack Obama, along with Vice President Joe Biden, and Senator John McCain. Additional defendants include the Speaker of the House John Boehner, Representative Nancy Pelosi, and Governor Andrew Cuomo, Comptroller Thomas Di Napoli, Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, and billionaires Penny Pritzker, Peter Petersen, and George Soros, as well as six political parties from the state of New York.

Complaint

The plaintiff, Strunk, offers a 45 page document that delivers a number of variations on “birther” cases. The central allegation being made by the plaintiff is that the defendants Senator John McCain and President Barack Obama are not citizens naturally born in the United States of America according to his interpretation of clause 5 of the United States Constitution. A New York Injury Lawyer said the plaintiff declares that the two are involved with the other defendants in a conspiracy to defraud the people of the United States on behalf of the Roman Catholic Church. He offers a lengthy diatribe against all of the defendants as well as the Roman Catholic Church, the Vatican, and the Jesuit Order or Society of Jesus.