Staten Island

Published on: April 11, 2012

Plaintiff Injured in Car Accident, Defendants Seek Summary Judgment Under CPLR 3212

by Stephen Bilkis

The plaintiffs in the case are Norris A. Calliste and Javaka Brown. The defendant in the case is Claude Williams. The case is being heard in the Supreme Court of Kings County.

Plaintiff Argument

The plaintiff’s action in this case is based on personal injuries that were sustained when they were involved in a car accident. The verified complaint that has been issued by the plaintiffs states that they were passengers in a car that was owned and operated at the time of the accident by the defendant, Claude Williams. The car was traveling on the Belt Parkway in Queens County at the time the accident occurred. Both plaintiffs sustained serious injuries when the car driven by Claude Williams collided with a vehicle on the overpass.

Published on: April 10, 2012

Tenants Claim Injury from Defective Faucet, New York Court Grants Summary Judgment to the Defendants

by Stephen Bilkis

The plaintiffs in the case are China Rabalais, an infant and her mother Kysha Jones and Kysha Jones as an individual. The defendant in the case is Starrett City, Inc.

Case History

The defendant in the case has filed a motion on April 12, 2010, seeking a summary judgment in their favor to dismiss the complaint made against them.

Published on: April 7, 2012

New York Court Denies Defendant’s Summary Judgment Motion in Eviction Case

by Stephen Bilkis

The plaintiffs in the case are La Cara Mia Bar Lounge Inc. The defendants in the case are Great Locations, Inc.

Plaintiff Argument

The plaintiff is seeking an order in the case to grant it preliminary injunction pursuant to CPLR 6301, staying that the prosecution of a non-payment summary proceeding that was first heard in the District Court of Nassau County and titled Great Locations versus La Cara Mia. The plaintiff also seeks to deny the defendant from initiating any other proceedings against them including evicting the plaintiff from the premises that are the subject of the instant action.

Published on: April 5, 2012

Respondent’s Motion to Vacate Is Denied by New York Appellate Court

by Stephen Bilkis

The petitioner in this case is Government Employees Insurance Company. The respondents in the case are Rinella Binns-Harty, and Technology Insurance Company. Proposed additional respondents are Sandra Ramos.

Case History

The respondent, Binns-Harty has moved for an order that vacates the award given to the arbitrator on July 28, 2009. The petitioner, Government Employees Insurance Company and Sandra Ramos both oppose this motion.

Published on: April 4, 2012

Plaintiff Sues for Construction Accident Injuries, Summary Judgment Granted by Appellate Court

by Stephen Bilkis

The plaintiff in the case is Aragon, LLC. The defendants in the case are Scottsdale Insurance Company and Sterling Group, Inc.

Plaintiff Argument

In this case of insurance declaratory judgment action the plaintiff Aragon moves for a summary judgment. The plaintiff declares they are entitled to indemnification and defense from the defendant, Scottsdale Insurance Company as an additional insurance in a personal injury action titled “Bernard Ford versus 250 Park LLC, or the “Ford Action.” The plaintiff seeks reimbursement for attorney fees as well as expenses incurred.

Published on: March 31, 2012

Court Hears Premises Liability Case

by Stephen Bilkis

The respondent in the case is James Davis. The respondent is represented by Jacobs, Jacobs & Giulini, Brooklyn, and Michael R. Scolnick. The appellant in the case is Bamboo 234 Restaurant, Inc. The appellant is represented by Henry Wolfman, from New York City and by Herbert Minster from Brooklyn.

The case is being held in the Second Division of the Supreme Court, Appellate Division. The judges in the case are Rabin, P.J., Hopkins, Munder, Martuscello, and Shapiro, JJ.

Court Memorandum

Published on: March 24, 2012

New York Appellate Court Upholds Dismissal of Plaintiffs Birth Injury Claim

by Stephen Bilkis

A woman who was pregnant first saw an obstetrician on January 2, 2004 for prenatal care. Two ultrasounds were performed on February 25, 2004 and again on April 21, 2004. These ultrasounds showed that the baby was growing normally. The third ultrasound on June 30, 2004 showed that the growth rate of the fetus was not the same. The ratio of the size of the head with the girth of the child around the abdomen was not within normal range.

On July 4, 2004, the mother’s water broke. She had a normal labor. She was hooked up to a fetal monitor and no signs of fetal distress were noted. While she was in labor, the umbilical cord of her baby was noted to be squeezed. The doctor ordered an emergency cesarean section.

A New York Injury Lawyer said when the baby was born, it cried spontaneously. His Apgar scores were normal. A sample of the blood from the umbilical cord showed that the gases in the blood were normal.

Published on: March 19, 2012

New York Appellate Court Decides Liability in Car Accident Case

by Stephen Bilkis

On 16 June 2004, a motor vehicle accident occurred where serious injuries were allegedly sustained by plaintiffs. The accident allegedly happened when the vehicle owned and operated by the defendant struck the vehicle operated by one of the plaintiffs, the other plaintiffs riding as passengers.

The complaint contains causes of action which allege that plaintiffs each sustained a “serious injury” as defined in Insurance Law; an action to recover damages.

Insurance Law defines “serious injury” as “a personal injury which results in death; dismemberment; significant disfigurement; a fracture (broken bone); loss of a fetus; permanent loss of use of a body organ, member, function or system; permanent consequential limitation of use of a body organ or member; significant limitation of use of a body function or system; or a medically determined injury or impairment of a non-permanent nature which prevents the injured person from performing substantially all of the material acts which constitute such person’s usual and customary daily activities for not less than ninety days during the one hundred eighty days immediately following the occurrence of the injury or impairment.”

Published on: March 10, 2012

Insurance Companies Seek Dismissal in NY Appellate Court for Industrial Waste Allegations

by Stephen Bilkis

A woman in Puerto Rico sued a Delaware corporation that manufactures blood analyzing machines. The complaint alleged that the Delaware Corporation had a manufacturing plant in Puerto Rico. The complaint alleged that the manufacturing plant continually discharged toxins from 1971 until 1981 into a creek that flowed into another creek that caused pollution and contamination of the soil, water and air in the neighborhood where the Puerto Rican woman lived and caused her sickness.

A New York Injury Lawyer said in its Answer, the Delaware Corporation admitted that it had intentionally discharged industrial wastes which flowed into the creek in 1979 but that after that, it began transporting its industrial wastes for disposal at a waste treatment facility. It also forwarded the defense that its intentional discharge of its industrial waste was not prohibited by its existing permits at that time.

In that personal injury case filed in the US territory of Puerto Rico, the Delaware Corporation asked the Superior Court to include as third party defendants around fifteen insurance corporations which had issued general and comprehensive insurance to the Delaware Corporation. The Delaware Corporation demanded that these fifteen insurance corporations indemnify it under the terms of its insurance policies and also provide the Delaware Corporation with defenses to protect itself against the personal injury suit filed by the Puerto Rican woman.

Published on: February 21, 2012

Plaintiff Sues City for Defective Sidewalk, New York Appellate Court Grants Defendant’s Summary Judgement Motion

by Stephen Bilkis

The defendant in this case has moved for a summary judgment and filed a motion to dismiss the personal injury case of the plaintiff due a trip and fall accident. With regard to the defendant’s motion, the plaintiff has moved to change her claim notice.

According to the claim document, the plaintiff filed the injury complaint because she wants to seek damages for the accident that happened to her in front of a building which is within the jurisdiction of the defendant. The plaintiff has alleged that she sustained injuries due to a defective sidewalk. The defendant in this case is a city.

In the plaintiff’s notice of claim, the plaintiff indicated that the defendant is considered as the owner of the defective sidewalk. Therefore, the defendant has the responsibility to ensure that the sidewalk is free from defects that may endanger the safety of the public. The city should be held accountable since it has agents and employees that are paid to inspect, maintain and repair any defects found on public property.