Staten Island

Published on: May 5, 2012

Dog Owner Seeks Damages for Animal to Animal Attack, NY Court Finds for the Plaintiff

by Stephen Bilkis

A coonhound mix dog attacked another dog. The owners of both dogs were neighbors residing in a side-by-side duplex. One day, the owner of the coonhound mix went out to tie up her dog in the back yard however her dog got away and attacked the complainant who was in the back yard of the duplex at that time. The complainant were not injured and managed to get away from the dog. A New York Injury Lawyer said the coonhound mix then ran around to the front of the house of the complainant’s side, where the complainant’s roommate was sitting on the porch. The coonhound mix proceeded to chase that individual into the front door of the complainant’s residence. When they got inside, the coonhound mix attacked a little dog causing life threatening injuries to it. The harm acquired by the little dog required surgery and significant follow-up veterinary care. The bills generated by the said attack were submitted to the court.

The complainant sued the owner of the coonhound mix and seeks reimbursement for veterinary bills acquired as a result of the injuries sustained by their dog. The complainant testified that she was not aware of any violent tendency of the coonhound mix nor had she ever seen the coonhound mix dog attack another animal. The facts were confirmed by the owner of the coonhound mix. The owner of the coonhound adopted the dog from a farm, which is operated by the humane society about a year before the attack. In addition, the owner of the coonhound mix presents evidence through a letter from the farm, which stated that based on paper work and conversations with staff during the time the dog was at the farm, the staff did not observe any aggression towards other dogs. The owner of the coonhound mix also testify that since she had a baby, the behavior of the dog changed in which she observed him bark and growl from time to time. She further testified that the dog was not very obedient.

Based on records, the state recognizes a reason of action which imposes strict liability or no proof of negligence necessary upon owners for injuries inflicted by their violent dogs, the owners which have knowledge thereof and viciousness being defined as prior bites and mischievous tendency. A Staten Island Personal Injury Lawyer said in common law negligence, the instant case of the owner of the coonhound mix failed to maintain control of their dog. As to the testimony indicated, the court stated that there is no merit to the contention of the complainant that she may assert a common law negligence reason for action against the owner of coonhound based upon the failure to secure the dog properly, without having to prove that the dog had violent tendencies of which the owner was aware. Liability is not dependent upon proof of negligence in the manner of keeping or confining the animal, but is predicated upon the owner’s keeping of the animal, despite his knowledge of the animal’s violent tendencies.

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 28, 2012

Child Bitten by Dog Chained in Back Yard, New York Appellate Court Overturns Prior Decision

by Stephen Bilkis

In New York, the laws that cover an attack by a dog on a person or other animal are handled in civil court as a motion to recover damages. A New York Injury Lawyer said in a situation where a dog has bitten a person, the dog is usually tied up or on a leash and a stranger approaches it. It is important to note that the dog is almost always considered at fault in this type of encounter even though the person had to approach the dog and not the other way around.

However, it is never a good idea to leave a dog chained or tied without a fence around them. People are often attracted to dogs and are known to approach them. No one should approach a strange dog, especially when the dog is tied and cannot retreat. Most cornered animals will turn and fight. A tied or chained dog is no exception. In some cases, an owner of a vicious dog uses poor judgment. One particular case demonstrates several issues.

In this case, a dog owner often left his dog chained in the back yard. The chain was attached to a stake in the ground, and there was no fence around the back yard. The dog was known to grown, bark and lunge to the end of his chain if anyone came in to the backyard. A Staten Island Personal Injury Lawyer said on one occasion, the dog’s owner told one of his neighbors to stay away from the dog because it was known to bite. On June 26, 1986, a child approached the dog and was bitten. It is critical to note that at the time of the attack, the dog was on a chain and was in his own back yard. Thus, the child who was bitten had ventured on to the property that was owned by the dog’s owner and gone into the reach of the dog who was secured by a chain.

Published on: April 27, 2012

NY Appellate Court Decides Dog Bite Case, Court Grants Summary Judgement to Defendants

by Stephen Bilkis

Dog ownership is a serious commitment that is often misguided. Pet stores have made it easy for people to purchase puppies without having any knowledge of their breeding, background, or breed characteristics. Unlike reliable certified breeders, who inquire about the person’s knowledge of the breed and facilities to maintain large breeds, pet stores do little if anything to ensure that the purchaser is able to care for the dog. Many pet stores carry “bully breed” dogs. They sell them without providing the purchaser with any warnings about what the breed was originally bred for. All domesticated dogs were specifically bred to handle a need among people. Some breeds were bred specifically as guard dogs and as such were bred not to form as close a bond with people as other breeds.

People may purchase a large breed puppy because it is cute and has wrinkles, but in some cases, they might as well bring a loaded gun into their homes. A New York Injury Lawyer said more people are purchasing breeds like the Neapolitan Mastiff and others, which were bred to be guard dogs. These people think that they can make the dog a gentle pet. These dogs need exercise and they need a job. They were never intended as pets.

On February 8, 2008, a little girl went to her brother’s fiancée’s house to spend the night with her brother and his future bride and her daughter. That night, she played with the three dogs that belonged to the family. One was a 125-pound Neapolitan Mastiff, the second dog was a Golden Retriever, and the third was a Maltese which weighed less than ten pounds. The following morning, she went into the living room to say good-bye to the dogs. She grabbed dogs by the face, put her face up to theirs and kissed their noses. When she got to the Mastiff, she was sleeping. The child grabbed the sleeping dog’s face and pressed her face to the dog’s face. The dog was startled and leapt up. The dog’s foot hit the child in the face, causing a deep cut that required stiches. The child fell over the ottoman and struck her face on the coffee table which caused her to break her nose. The dog never growled, barked, bared its teeth, or bit the child. In fact, the dog was so terrified by the attack that she retreated to the kitchen and hid.

Published on: April 26, 2012

New York Appellate Court Discusses Compensation Rate of Legal Counsel

by Stephen Bilkis

The plaintiff in this case is the New York County Lawyers’ Association. The defendant in the case is the State of New York.

The Case

A New York Injury Lawyer said this is a bench trial case that is seeking a declaratory judgment and a permanent injunction as to whether or not the state of New York’s failure to raise the rates of compensation for assigned counsel violates the statutory and constitutional rights of an individual to gain effective and meaningful representation. The plaintiff in the case, the New York County Lawyers’ Association is seeking an increase of the rate of compensation for both in court and out of court work for assigned counsel.

Published on: April 20, 2012

Child Protective Services Removed Child from Respondent’s Care

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Injury Lawyer said on 30 January 2007, at approximately 11:30 PM, New York City Children’s Services (hereinafter “NYCCS”) removed the subject children (child-one and child-two) from the care of the respondents without a court order pursuant to Family Court Act.

On 1 February 2008, NYCCS filed abuse petitions against both parents, respondents.

The petitions allege that, on or about 30 January 2007, respondent father inflicted excessive corporal punishment on child-one causing marks, bruises and two black eyes (head injury). Further, the petitions allege that in November 2007, respondent father hit child-one with a belt in the face causing bruising. In addition, the petitions allege that respondent mother failed to provide adequate care and supervision for child-one by allowing respondent father to remain in the home with the children after November 2007 when she learned that he had beaten child-one. Finally, the petitions allege that child-two is a derivatively abused and neglected child by virtue of the abuse of child-one. (The respondent-father is the father of child-two but not child-one.)

Published on: April 19, 2012

Plaintiff Sues Doctor for Severe Birth Injuries, NY Appellate Court Denies Defendant’s Summary Judgement Motion

by Stephen Bilkis

A dermatologist was pregnant. Three weeks before she gave birth, dermatologist reported to her obstetrician that she had been experiencing abdominal pain, vomiting and she could not hold any food down. The woman had lost weight during the last few weeks of her pregnancy instead of gaining weight.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the dermatologist was diagnosed with an infected gall bladder and gall stones at the time that she delivered her baby. The obstetrician claims that the mother made no such complaints to her. She claimed in her deposition that the pregnancy proceeded uneventfully.

The dermatologist had to undergo a cesarean section. In the delivery room, the circulating nurse noted on the chart that the amniotic fluid was clear. The obstetrician made a handwritten note on the margin of the delivery report that there was no meconium present. An intern at the neonatal intensive care unit where the child was transferred after his cesarean delivery noted that meconium was present.

Published on: April 17, 2012

New York Appellate Court Discusses Informed Consent Regarding Birth Injury

by Stephen Bilkis

A fourteen-year-old plaintiff, by and with her father, sues the hospital and physician who treated her at birth and for a period thereafter for injuries sustained in the first weeks of her life. Only two pounds, eight ounces at birth, she is today a healthy teenager with an above-average I.Q.; however, she is totally blind (blindness) as a result of retrolental fibroplasia (RLF) disease, which plaintiffs argue was caused by the administration of excessive amounts of oxygen over her first thirteen days (birth injury or birth injury accident). The complaint alleges medical malpracticeand lack of informed consent.

Up until the mid-1950’s it was accepted medical practice to administer quite liberal doses of oxygen to premature infants to prevent death or brain damage. Research of this period ultimately showed, however, that prolonged and high concentrations of oxygen in an incubator (over 50%) led to the certain development of RLF. Thus, by the time of plaintiff’s birth, in May of 1970, it was well-established that oxygen should only be applied to counteract respiratory problems and cyanosis in premature infants, as exhibited by plaintiff, and then only at relatively low percentage-volumes and for only brief periods.

A New York Injury Lawyer said at trial, evidence showed that plaintiff was subjected to concentrations of oxygen between 31-40% over a thirteen-day period. This proof permitted a finding, based also upon the opinion of plaintiff’s expert, that this continuous use of oxygen caused her RLF. However, there was also an abundance of evidence that without any oxygen, plaintiff would have died or suffered brain damage.

Published on: April 15, 2012

Insurance Company was Obligated to Notify Plaintiff They Were Not Covered By Insurance

by Stephen Bilkis

The plaintiff in this case was the Legion Insurance Company, while Abraham Weiss was the respondent.

Appeal

This appeal is in regards to another action. The original case is known as Jordan v Weiss. This case was a personal injury claim filed in the Supreme Court of Kings County. It was identified by Index Number 46083/99. The appeal is a request for a summary judgment that would remove any obligation on the part of the plaintiff to defend and indemnify Mr. Weiss in the previous personal injury case. A New York Injury Lawyer said originally, the defendant’s motion for summary judgment had been granted, while the plaintiffs cross motion for a ruling in its favor had been denied.

Published on: April 12, 2012

New York Court Rules on Appeal Regarding Car Accident Case, Partial Summary Judgement Awarded to Plaintiff

by Stephen Bilkis

The plaintiff in this case was Augustin Lopez. The defendant was Mark Senatore.

The Appeal

The appeal in this case was filed in regards to an initial ruling made in January of 1983 by the Supreme Court of Kings County. The original case was a negligence action that sought to recover damaged as a result of damage to property and personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff. A New York Injury Lawyer said the Supreme Court denied the plaintiff’s motion for a partial summary judgment. A cross-appeal was filed by the defendant that requested the action dismissed based on the claim that any injuries did not meet the requirement of serious injury. This cross-appeal was abandoned.