Suffolk County

Published on: May 22, 2012

Woman Sues Man for Becoming Pregnant, Court of Appeals Finds for Plaintiff

by Stephen Bilkis

A 35-year-old divorced woman and a 58-year-old married man met and became lovers sometime in the autumn of 1981. Prior to their sexual intercourse, both of them discussed the use of contraception since it is presumed that neither party desired to have a child. The woman, who had originally planned to use a diaphragm or the rhythm method, was told not to worry by the man. A New York Injury Lawyer said the man further told the woman that he was sterile as a result of a medical condition. His sterility was caused by a medical condition known as hydrocele. Based on records, a hydrocele is a collection of fluid which usually forms a mass around the testes. The woman believed him and in reliance on his statement, she did not use any contraceptive method when having sexual intercourse with him. Consequently, the woman became pregnant and she decided to have an abortion.

The woman sued the man after becoming pregnant to recover the costs of an abortion incurred by her and other related expenses. The woman demands damages in the amount of $1,500, the jurisdictional limit of the court. Each item of damage alleged to have been acquired by the woman has been examined and computed. The remedy afforded an injured party in negligence is designed to place the injured party in the position that he would have occupied but for the negligence of the accused man.

At first, the woman requests reimbursement for the costs of the abortion in the amount of $200. She has provided the court with a hospital bill. The amount is reasonable and the abortion is directly attributable to the negligence of the man. The woman is entitled to recover the said amount. Similarly, she should recover the sum of $4.35 expended for taxi fare to the hospital on the day on which the abortion was performed. The woman’s next request was a $500, representing ten days loss of work at $50 per day on account of morning sickness prior to the abortion and physical discomfort as a result of the abortion. In support, the woman submits an income statement indicating that for the week she worked only 7 1/2 hours at a total salary of $52.50. She is entitled to recover for four days of lost work or $210. Finally, the woman requests recovery for pain and suffering occasioned as a result of becoming pregnant and having an abortion.

Published on: May 21, 2012

Woman Sues for Medical Malpractice Due to Recalled IUD, Defendants Motion to Dismiss is Denied by New York Appellate Court

by Stephen Bilkis

A woman together with her husband sued her prior physician for alleged medical malpracticein insertion of an intrauterine device (IUD), a birth control device. The IUD was recalled at the medical level by the federal food and drug administration prior to the date of insertion. The couple also joined in this action as party opponents of both the developer and the distributor of the IUD.

Consequently, the physician moved to dismiss the legal action filed against him. The physician further contends that he inserted the IUD, prior to the recall, that regardless of when the device was inserted, the three year law of limitations has long since run in either event, since the alleged medical malpractice occurred at the time of insertion.

A New York Injury Lawyer said the woman in opposition argues that the physician never advised her at any time that the device has been recalled or should be removed. She had no way of knowing that the IUD was causing injury to her until her severe infection. According to the complaint, the physician advised the woman at the time of insertion that the IUD would be safe and effective and would be good for a period of at least 5 to 6 years. However, the woman began to experience severe radiating abdominal pain, infection, discharge and temperature, for which she was admitted to the hospital. During her hospitalization she had to undergo surgery, including a complete hysterectomy and surgical removal of the IUD, all as a result of the unsafe birth control device.

Published on: May 17, 2012

Plaintiff Claims Landlord Negligent in Dog Bite Incident

by Stephen Bilkis

A 72 year old lady lived in an apartment complex where there was a “no pets” policy in the lease. One of the residents violated his lease and kept a pit bull as his pet. On August 8, 1995, the 72 year old lady was walking down a pathway when she heard a dog barking. She saw a neighbor or hers as he tried to control his barking pit bull. The dog’s owner told the 72-year old lady that his dog was barking because he saw children playing and that aggravated the dog.

A New York Injury Lawyer said a few seconds later, the dog jumped up on the 72 year old lady. The dog attacked the lady and she sustained a head injurywhen the dog bit off her left cheek. The lady then sued her landlord because he was negligent in enforcing the terms of the lease that no pets were allowed in the apartment building. She also sued the dog owner. She claimed that the dog owner knew or should have known that his dog had vicious propensities. He should have known that his dog attacks people.

Both the landlord and the dog owner filed a motion for summary judgment asking that the complaint against them be dismissed. The plaintiff also moved for a summary judgment asking the court to determine liability.

Published on: May 6, 2012

NY Appellate Court Remands Proceedings in Dog Bite Case

by Stephen Bilkis

On 3 September 1987 at approximately 1:00 a.m., defendant encountered the complainant, on St. Mark’s Place in Manhattan. Complainant, who was an acquaintance of defendant, angrily confronted him about $5.00 which she and a friend had given him to procure “pot” for them a month earlier. A New York Injury Lawyer said the complainant accused defendant of having neither returned with the marijuana nor refunded the money. Defendant denied the accusation, claiming that he had in fact returned, but had been unable to find complainant.

Immediately prior to being stopped on the street by complainant, defendant had been riding a bicycle with his dog, a pit bull terrier, leashed at his side. As the disagreement escalated, complainant became so enraged that she picked up defendant’s bicycle, which he had dismounted and left at the curb, and threw it into the street.

Conflicting evidence were presented as to the exact point in the dispute when the dog, agitated by the commotion and shouting, lunged at complainant and began to bite her foot (dog bite, injury).

Published on: May 5, 2012

Can Medical Malpractice Action Be Filed for Stillborn Child?

by Stephen Bilkis

Defendant-doctor and his professional corporation (defendant-one) rendered obstetric care to plaintiff-mother during her pregnancy with and birth of her baby. During the course of her pregnancy, she had four ultrasound examinations for which defendant-two rendered ultrasound reports. A New York Injury Lawyer said that based upon the reports and also the defendant-doctor’s examinations of the mother, it was determined that plaintiff-mother was carrying a large fetus for its gestational age. Defendant-doctor noted that plaintiff-mother should be watched for cephalopelvic disproportion.

On 17 January 1990, plaintiff-mother was admitted to defendant-doctor’s hospital for induction of labor by use of the medication Pitocin. Upon her admission, she was examined by an employee of defendant-doctor’s hospital, who determined that the mother’s pelvis was adequate to deliver the baby, and who administered the Pitocin, as ordered by defendant-doctor.

On 17 January 1990 at 5:00 pm, the mother began to deliver her baby. After emergence of his head, the head retracted back into the uterus, indicating that his shoulders were stuck. At this point, there was a strong fetal heartbeat, and pulsating in the umbilical cord. From 5:05 to 5:24 pm, eight physicians attempted to deliver the baby. Upon his full expulsion, the baby was no longer viable. At no time did he breathe on his own, outside his mother. Upon autopsy, the baby weighed 12 pounds, 12 ounces.

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 3, 2012

Court Decides Which Insurance Co. Liable in Million Dollar Judgment

by Stephen Bilkis

The respondent in the case is Liberty Mutual Insurance Company. The appellants in the case are Aetna Casualty & Surety Company.

Original Case

A New York Injury Lawyer said the current action for a judgment to declare the four insurance companies stems from an accident that was subject to action to recover damages for personal injuries.

Published on: May 1, 2012

Plaintiff Brings Suit for Dog Attack, NY Appellate Court Grants Summary Judgement for the Defendant

by Stephen Bilkis

A man was walking on the sidewalk next to a house fenced by chain-link. He saw that a dog was unleashed and freely roaming the property behind the chain-link fence. The man paused in front of the chain-link fence and rested his hand on the top of the chain-link fence. The dog within the fence climbed some cinderblocks. It lunged at the man’s hand. A New York Personal Injury Lawyer said the man sustained an injury on his hand caused by the dog bite. After the dog bit the man’s hand, the dog backed away.

The man sued the dog owner seeking damages to compensate for the injury he sustained consequent to the dog attack. The man claims that the dog owner knew or should have known that his dog was dangerous, that the dog had a vicious propensity and was prone to bite or attack.

In the alternative, a Westchester County Personal Injury Lawyer said the man also brought a cause of action in the same complaint alleging that the dog owner was negligent. He left cinderblocks piled on the corner of his property which the dog climbed on and was the very reason why the dog was able to reach his hand and bite it.

Published on: April 30, 2012

Plaintiff Brings Medical Malpractice Claim for Failure to Diagnose, NY Appellate Court Finds for Plaintiff

by Stephen Bilkis

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.

Published on: April 28, 2012

New York Appellate Court Discusses Elements of Dog Bite Case

by Stephen Bilkis

Everyone who owns a dog in the United States should be aware of the many legal issues associated with having your pet. Most of us who own dogs, consider them four legged family members. When an incident arises that could jeopardize their survival, we become frantic. However, people are human and often make ill-advised choices. A New York Injury Lawyer says any animal, human or other, will bite if the situation calls for it. Responsible dog owners understand this. A responsible dog owner will not put his or her dog in a situation where the dog will feel that it is necessary to fight or flee.

Unfortunately, even the best-intentioned dog owners have a tendency to assume that a dog understands all human actions. What they should be doing, is attempting to understand how your dog will view any given situation in order to avoid an encounter that could jeopardize your dog. Early dog training classes are good for dogs. A dog is never too old to learn. The earlier the dog starts learning how to communicate with humans and vice versa, the better the chances are that the dog will not get into trouble with the law later in his life. When a dog is placed into a situation where he feels threatened, he will bite. When a dog bites a person, the dog is usually the one who is killed. It doesn’t seem fair that a dog can be put to death for defending itself, but there is no self-defense plea in dog bite cases.

The laws of New York state that in order for the owner to be charged for the vicious actions of his or her dog, they must have knowledge of the vicious propensity of the dog. If the owner has never been in a situation to suspect that the dog might bite, New York law says that the owner is not responsible. If an animal has teeth, they can bite. A Westchester County Personal Injury Lawyer said that most domesticated animals make the conscious choice not to bite. However, there are many situations where dogs have gone years with their owners never showing a desire to bite a person and then one day they bite someone.