Articles Posted in Personal Injury

Published on:

by

New York property owners are responsible for keeping their premises reasonably safe for people who are invited onto the property. When a guest is hurt while using a feature like a dock or pool, the court looks at whether the owner was negligent in maintaining the property or failed to give warnings. In Sess v. McGorry, the court considered whether homeowners were liable after a guest was hurt diving from their dock into shallow water. The decision looked at the property conditions, the injured guest’s actions, and whether the legal defenses of assumption of risk or sole responsibility applied.

Background Facts
On July 30, 2015, at about 1:30 a.m., Tristan Sess was injured when he dove headfirst into Moriches Bay from the dock of the McGorry family’s summer home in Westhampton Beach, New York. Sess was 19 years old and serving in the Navy. He had visited the McGorry home at least once before to socialize and swim after training with other young men interested in joining Navy special forces.

On the night of the injury, Sess and a group of friends had grilled food, spent time in the hot tub, and repeatedly jumped and dove off the dock into the bay. Sess had consumed a few beers earlier in the day. His girlfriend joined the group that evening. Sess warned her about the shallow water. About ten minutes later, he performed a shallow dive and struck his head on the bay floor.

Published on:

by

In New York, product liability law allows an injured person to bring a lawsuit when a product causes harm because it was not reasonably safe. One type of claim involves defective design. In these cases, courts ask whether the product’s design created an unreasonable risk of harm when used as intended. Even when a product functions correctly, it may still be unsafe if a safer design was available at a reasonable cost. This case involved a circular saw and whether it had a design that made it unsafe to use, even though the safety guard worked as intended.

Background Facts

The plaintiff used a circular power saw made by Black & Decker to cut wood for a home project. He stood in his driveway, cutting 2×4 boards on sawhorses. He held the saw in his right hand and braced the wood with his left. The saw had a guard over the blade that retracted when cutting and was supposed to return to a closed position when not in use.

Published on:

by

Swimming pool accidents sometimes lead to serious injuries, especially when a pool is not properly maintained, supervised, or labeled with warnings. In New York, legal responsibility for these injuries depends on many factors, including the condition of the pool, the actions of those involved, and the roles of manufacturers, sellers, and property owners. Courts often examine whether the pool had any dangerous defects, whether the injured person was warned about potential hazards, and whether a product or property condition contributed to the accident. This case involved a child who was injured while using an above-ground pool. The court reviewed the evidence to determine whether any party could be held legally responsible for what happened.

Background Facts

In 1982, defendants Paul and Florence Marinaccio purchased a four-foot above-ground swimming pool and a deck kit from defendant Pool Mart, Inc. They installed the pool and deck at their home. Five years later, in 1987, they sold the property—including the installed pool—to defendants Perry and June Hinsken.

Published on:

by

A school maintenance worker who slipped while cleaning a classroom floor sued the New York City Department of Education (DOE) for personal injuries. He argued that the DOE failed to provide a safe work environment. The court reviewed the facts and dismissed the case, holding that the accident was related to the worker’s routine duties and not caused by any violation of law or safety rule by the DOE. This case shows how courts treat injury claims that arise during routine cleaning tasks.

Background Facts

Ahmed Aljahmi worked as a part-time cleaner at William E. Grady Career and Technical Education High School in Brooklyn. He was employed by a contractor hired by the New York City Department of Education. His job included cleaning classrooms and hallways.

by
Posted in:
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

by

In Anderson v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 2021 NY Slip Op 02777, the Appellate Division, Second Department, reviewed a personal injury lawsuit brought by a security guard who allegedly slipped on ice while working at a United Parcel Service (UPS) facility. The trial court had dismissed her complaint and also dismissed UPS’s third-party claims against the security guard’s employer, Adelis International Security, Inc.

Background Facts

The incident occurred at approximately 1:26 a.m. on January 1, 2011. The plaintiff, Sandra Anderson, was working as a security guard at a UPS facility in Uniondale, New York. She was employed by Adelis, which had a guard services contract with UPS.

Published on:

by

In Martinez v. Turner Construction Company, the Supreme Court of New York County ruled on competing motions for summary judgment in a construction accident case involving a falling plank. The court found that the injured worker established a valid claim under Labor Law § 240(1) and denied both parties’ motions regarding Labor Law § 241(6), allowing the case to continue.

Background Facts

On October 10, 2014, Bayron Martinez was working at a construction site located at the former Saint Vincent Medical Campus in Manhattan. West Village Residences, LLC owned the property, and Turner Construction Company served as the construction manager. Turner subcontracted masonry work to GEM Roofing and Waterproofing, which employed Martinez as a pointer, caulker, and cleaner.

Published on:

by

In April 2025, the New York Court of Appeals reversed long-standing precedent by allowing a dog bite victim to pursue a negligence claim, not just a strict liability claim. Rebecca Flanders worked as a postal carrier. On December 8, 2018, she delivered a package to the home of Stephen and Michelle Goodfellow. Their mailbox was missing, so Flanders pulled into the driveway and approached the front door. She did not see any warnings about a dog on the property. As she handed the package to Stephen Goodfellow, she heard a dog approaching inside the house. The dog ran through the open door and bit her on the shoulder, causing serious injury that later required multiple surgeries.

The Goodfellows had owned the dog for several years. It weighed about 70 pounds. They had hired a trainer due to behavioral issues, including incidents where the dog dragged Michelle to the ground while on a leash. The trainer noted that the dog got into a fight with another dog but did not observe aggression toward people. According to the Goodfellows, the dog had not previously bitten or attacked anyone.

However, two other postal workers submitted sworn affidavits describing the dog’s behavior during their deliveries. Both workers stated that the dog growled, snarled, and slammed into the windows as if trying to break through. One described it as the most aggressive dog on his route. Neither had reported the behavior formally but believed the homeowners should have seen or heard it.

Published on:

by

In Chowdhury v. Rodriguez, the Appellate Division, Second Department, considered whether a homeowner could be held liable for injuries suffered by a construction worker who fell from a ladder during a porch renovation. The court evaluated whether the worker’s claims under Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), and 241(6) could survive summary judgment and clarified how courts should approach cases involving equipment provided by property owners.

Background Facts

Nazrul Chowdhury worked as a laborer for Williamsburg Construction. His employer had been hired to rebuild the front porches of a two-family home in Ridgewood, Queens. The property was occupied by Antonio and Judith Rodriguez, along with their family, and another tenant, Clemente Almonte. Chowdhury’s daily work included tasks like measuring and laying cement.

Published on:

by

In Strunk v. Zoltanski, the Appellate Division, Second Department, addressed whether a landlord could be held legally responsible for injuries caused by a tenant’s dog. The case involved an incident where a child was bitten by a dog while on leased property. The court considered whether the landlord’s knowledge of the dog’s behavior at the time of leasing the property created a duty to prevent the injury.

Background Facts

On May 8, 1979, a child was bitten on the face and arm by a German Shepherd while visiting residential property. The dog belonged to a tenant who rented the home from the defendant, Sophie Zoltanski. The child’s mother filed a negligence lawsuit against both the tenant and the landlord. She sought compensation for her son’s injuries and for the loss of his services.

Published on:

by

In Collier v. Zambito, the New York Court of Appeals examined whether the owners of a family dog could be held liable for a bite injury to a child who had been invited into their home. The court focused on whether the dog showed any prior signs of vicious behavior and whether the owners had notice of such behavior.

Background Facts

On December 31, 1998, 12-year-old Matthew Collier was visiting the home of Charles and Mary Zambito. Matthew had been there before to visit their son. The Zambitos owned a mixed breed dog named Cecil. The family typically confined Cecil to the kitchen, especially when visitors were present, because the dog would bark. On the night of the incident, Matthew went downstairs to use the bathroom. When he exited the bathroom, Mrs. Zambito invited him to approach Cecil, who was on a leash.

by
Posted in:
Published on:
Updated:
Contact Information