Queens

Published on: May 19, 2012

Court Rules Against Insurance Company in Slip and Fall

by Stephen Bilkis

Occasionally, a situation will arise that causes a personal injury to a person in which it is difficult to determine who holds the liability for the specific situation. In New York, according to a New York Injury Lawyer, most delivery companies have liability insurance that covers the delivery of their product through transport until the item is placed in its final delivered position. If a person is injured during a delivery, the delivery company has liability coverage that will cover it. However, if the product has already been placed in its delivered position, the delivery is complete and the insurance coverage for that delivery is over.

In one case that occurred on August 30, 2010 in Bronx County, New York, a man was walking across the floor of the basement boiler room in his residential building when he slipped. He slipped on oil that had been delivered the day before to the boiler room (slip and fall). Apparently, during the delivery, the delivery personnel spilled oil on the floor and failed to clean it up or notify anyone that the oil was on the floor. The man sustained significant injury in the fall and filed a lawsuit to recover damages from those injuries. The main also filed a motion to obtain a summary judgment from the court declaring that the defendant insurance company for the oil delivery truck pay those damages. The Supreme court of Bronx County granted the victim’s summary judgment and ordered the truck insurance company to reimburse the victim for his personal injury.

The insurance company for the delivery truck filed an appeal. They stated that the delivery had been completed the day before and thus they did not believe that they should hold any liability. The offered before the court the defense that they cannot be held liable for the injuries that were sustained the day after the delivery was completed. The court disagreed. A Queens Personal Injury Lawyer said the statute as written states that the products-completed operations hazard coverage applies if the work has not yet been completed or if the work was abandoned while it was in delivery and the company employee failed to complete the delivery in a satisfactory manner.

Published on: May 19, 2012

Woman Slips and Falls in Apartment Building, New York Appellate Court Finds for Defendant Property Owner

by Stephen Bilkis

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.

Published on: May 16, 2012

Plaintiff has Slip and Fall Accident from Excessive Ice

by Stephen Bilkis

A woman was walking along a sidewalk on Leonard Street in Brooklyn. She passed a house with a garage that abutted a sidewalk. The position of the garage door indicated that the residents of the house passed the sidewalk when they bring their cars to and from the garage.

A New York Injury Lawyer said as the woman was walking on the sidewalk in front of the garage door, she slipped on ice and snow that had not been removed. Her weight was on her right foot when she suffered the slip and fall. She sustained personal injury and commenced a suit in damages against the owner of the property that abutted the sidewalk.

After discovery proceedings and before trial, the property owner moved for a summary judgment, asking that the complaint be dismissed for the failure of the plaintiff to show that there are genuine issues of fact that must be heard by a jury.

Published on: May 14, 2012

Court Decides of Insurance Company should Provide Liability Coverage

by Stephen Bilkis

The appellant is State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company. Jacques Laguerre et al. Are listed as defendants and Petter A. Gozzi is named as a respondent.

Results

The initial order from the original suit was reversed as was appealed for in regards to the portion of the original complaint. The plaintiff looked for summary judgment that would remove any obligation to defend and provide liability coverage to Jacques Laguerre. This defense was to have been in regards to a car crash that occurred on February 11, 1999. Petter A. Gozzi also filed a cross-motion that would force the plaintiff to defend and indemnify Laguerre in the action regarding the crash. This case, Index Number 111255/01 was pending in New York County. However, a New York Injury Lawyer said the motion to force State Farm to defend and indemnify Jacques Laguerre was subsequently denied.

Published on: May 11, 2012

Court Deals with Destruction of Evidence in Slip and Fall

by Stephen Bilkis

On September 16, 2006, a woman and her daughter were shopping in a sporting goods store at 606 West 181st Street in New York. They both got on the escalator to go to the second floor to shop. The daughter got off of the escalator and walked toward the gym clothes. She was almost at the clothes when she heard her mother fall and cry out. She turned and ran to her mother. A New York Injury Lawyer said her mother was laying on the floor of the store at the top of the escalator. Next to her on the floor were some pieces of Mango that were old, brown and mashed down onto the floor. It was evident that her mother had stepped on one and slipped causing her to fall(slip and fall).

The manager of the store ran over and began to yell at the cashiers that they should have cleaned up the mango mess. He berated them for not seeing the problem and taking care of it. He stated that it was part of their jobs to watch for spills and to clean them up as fast as possible. The cashiers claimed that they had not noticed the mango slices on the floor in spite of the fact that the mango was just a few feet away from the cash registers. When the store manager was notified of the incident, he was advised by the attorneys to secure any videotaped footage of the incident that might be on the store’s surveillance cameras. The store was equipped with numerous cameras covering the second floor where the accident occurred. The store manager verified that he had the incident on tape and was told to preserve it for court. He stated that he secured it in the safe. However, a few months later, he advised that it was not available for court because the tape had been destroyed.

The destruction of the evidence on the tape was disconcerting to all involved. The court is left to presume that the tape showed where the dropped fruit had come from and how long it had been on the floor before the accident occurred. A Brooklyn Personal Injury Lawyer said it would also have shown the accident itself. The fact that the tape has been destroyed raises more questions than it answers. The store manager maintains that it does not matter how long the fruit was on the floor because no one employed by the store was aware that the problem existed. Since there was no constructive notice given to the store employees about the damaged fruit on the floor, the manager maintains that he is not liable. Both parties agreed that sliced mangoes are sold outside of the store on a regular basis. They are served pierced on a stick so that they are easy to carry. The store has a policy that prohibits food or beverages inside the store. However, none of the employees saw anyone enter the store with the mango stick.

Published on: May 10, 2012

Slip and Fall Plaintiff Contends Poor Snow Removal Caused Accident

by Stephen Bilkis

On January 15, 2006, a woman left her home in Queens, New York. She was walking and it was snowing in a heavy fashion. She stated that she had seen five inches of snow on the banister of her home’s steps when she walked down them. A New York Injury Lawyer said she woman walked past two houses on her way to the supermarket. She stated that she had gotten home from work the night before and that it had been snowing and there was ice on the sidewalk. When she was in front of the house owned by the defendant and his wife, she tripped on something in the snow and fell (slip and fall). Her ankle was twisted badly and she could not get up to continue on to her location or to go back to her own house just two houses away. She testified in court that she sat on the sidewalk in front of the defendant’s house for two hours in a blinding snowstorm until she was found and helped. She stated that she had tripped on old ice that was piled up under the new snow. As she sat there, she examined the ice and found that it was old and blackened with dirt from melting and refreezing.

The defendant has filed a motion for summary judgment in his favor dismissing the complaint against him. He maintains that there was no snow accumulated in front of his residence. He and his wife testified that they shovel the snow in front of their residence as soon as the snow accumulates there. They maintain that they were never notified by the city that there was an accumulation in front of their home that needed to be removed. Queens Personal Injury Lawyer they further stated that until the notice to appear in court, they did not know anything about anyone falling in the snow.

In support of their claims, the defendant produced climatological reports for the two weeks prior to the incident. The woman claimed that she had noticed the ice on the sidewalk in that location a couple of weeks before and that the defendant’s had failed to remove the ice. The defendant’s refute that claim by stating that after shoveling snow, they are always conscientious about applying salt to the sidewalk to make sure that ice does not form. The climatological reports showed that while it got down below freezing at night on several of the nights, prior to the snowstorm of that date, the days were warm and any snow or ice that was on the ground would have melted. Since this evidence creates an atmosphere of doubt surrounding the survival of any ice on the sidewalk for two weeks prior to the accident, it is doubtful that the woman tripped on any old ice.

Published on: May 9, 2012

New York Appellate Court Decides Dog Bite Case, Judgement for the Defendant

by Stephen Bilkis

On 1 August 2009, the complaining witness, respondents’ neighbor, was washing his car in his own driveway when his next door neighbor exited her home. As she exited, three adult Rottweilers ran out of the house and chased a male who had apparently been visiting the woman next door. A New York Injury Lawyer said that individual seemed to be frightened by the dogs and in order to avoid what seemed to have been an imminent attack (a dog attack or an animal attack), jumped upon a vehicle owned by the complaining witness. At that time, the same three dogs turned their attention to the complaining witness. He, too, jumped on top of his car to avoid what seemed to be an attack on his person. However, this time the dogs alighted the vehicle he had been washing and one or more of the dogs bit him on numerous parts of his body. It was only after he was perched on top of his vehicle that the dogs retreated to the respondent’s home.

Subsequently, the aforesaid neighbor initiated this complaint.

During the hearing, the Court was able to observe a wound on the victim’s hand. Photographs were admitted into evidence depicting two large and seemingly deep penetrating wounds on the victim’s thigh. Other photographs were admitted into evidence showing that pieces of human flesh and fatty tissue had been ripped from the victim’s body. Furthermore, it is apparent that blood was dripping from the roof of the vehicle and down the windshield. Moreover, it is apparent to the Court that the blood was that of the victim. It should also be noted that paw prints were depicted on the hood of the freshly washed car.

Published on: May 8, 2012

Defendant Claims Statute of Limitations has Run, New York Appellate Court Disagrees

by Stephen Bilkis

A man moves to dismiss the personal injury action filed against him on the ground that the action is barred by the law of limitations. A New York Injury Lawyer said the complainant cross-move the action to consolidate it against the man with another pending action arising out of the same slips and fall. The record establishes that the man is not entitled to the relief he seeks and that consolidation of the actions is appropriate.

The abovementioned actions arise out of when the complainant slip and fallon an icy walkway at a mobile home park then owned by the man. The particular lot where the complainant fell was rented by a couple. The complainant’s contend that the man, who rented the lot, was employed by the man to supervise the mobile home park. The pending personal injury action against the man was commenced more than three years after the complainants ’cause of action accrued. The complainant also contend that because an employer-employee relationship existed between his opponents, he is entitled to the benefit of the relation back principle and that the claim against the man is therefore deemed to have been interposed when the complaint was served in the action against the man’s employee.

The man points out that he was originally named as an opponent in the complainant’s timely-commenced action but was never served and therefore, the action against him was automatically dismissed. For that reason, because the additional 120-day period had also expired, the complainants’ motion to permit expedited service on the man in that action was denied by the decision of the court. The complainant thereafter purchased a new index number, initiated a new action against the man and obtained an order permitting expedited service on man and to effect on such service.

Published on: May 2, 2012

Problems with Service of Process in Personal Injury Matter, NY Appellate Court Dismisses Action

by Stephen Bilkis

The defendant third-party plaintiff-respondent in the case is the Waltco Truck Equipment Company. The plaintiff is Mark Mandel. The Coca-Cola Company is a third-party defendant, while the Industrial Truck Body is a third-party defendant-respondent.

Court Memo

A New York Injury Lawyer said an appeal was filed by the plaintiff to recover damages for personal injuries. On September 3rd, 1996, the Kings County Supreme court granted the motion by Waltco Truck Equipment Company, and Industrial Truck Body, the defendant and a third party defendant, to dismiss the initial complaint based on the non-compliance of the plaintiff with CPLR 306-b. The summons, complaint and affidavit of service included in the cross motion was denied.

Published on: April 30, 2012

New York Appellate Court Decides Liability in Dog Bite Case, Finds for Defendant

by Stephen Bilkis

In June 2005, plaintiffs and defendants were temporarily residing at a campground in Accord, Ulster County. A New York Injury Lawyer said the defendants had a mixed-breed dog. Defendants and plaintiffs had known one another for years, and plaintiff was well acquainted with the dog. Plaintiff testified that she had patted the dog, played with her, and kissed her on numerous prior occasions without incident, and had once even taken her to the veterinarian. On the day of plaintiff’s injury, she attended a party at defendants’ campground residence to celebrate one of the defendants’ birthday. During the party, the dog was tied by a chain on defendants’ front porch, where plaintiff patted her once or twice in the course of the evening. Plaintiff left defendants’ residence briefly. Upon her return, she reached out to pat the dog as she climbed the porch steps. The dog lunged and bit plaintiff in the face (dog bite).

Plaintiff and her husband, derivatively, commenced the instant action in May 2007.

Defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, contending that they neither knew nor should have known of the dog’s vicious propensities.