Personal Injury

Published on: March 30, 2026

Workers’ Compensation Claim Allowed for COVID-19 and Stroke. Matter of Aungst v Family Dollar, 2025 NY Slip Op 06530

by Stephen Bilkis

In Matter of Aungst v Family Dollar, the New York Court of Appeals considered whether a worker who contracted COVID-19 on the job could recover workers’ compensation benefits for that illness and for a later stroke that was claimed to be related to it. The case focused on how the Workers’ Compensation Board evaluates whether an illness arises out of and in the course of employment when the disease is widespread in the community and not tied to one single moment of exposure.

Background Facts

The claimant worked as a store manager for Family Dollar in April 2020, during the early period of the COVID-19 pandemic. He worked full time in a busy retail store that remained open as an essential business. According to his testimony, his work required frequent and close contact with the public, either on the sales floor or while serving as a cashier. He said that the employer did not provide employees with face masks or sneeze guards until the middle of April 2020. He also explained that although customers were supposed to wear masks and keep distance, store employees were told not to enforce those rules.

Published on: February 23, 2026

Hospital May Be Liable for Failing to Protect Patient from Assault. N. X. v. Cabrini Medical Center, 97 N.Y.2d 247 (2002)

by Stephen Bilkis

In N. X. v. Cabrini Medical Center, the New York Court of Appeals addressed a hospital’s responsibility to protect a patient from harm while receiving medical care. The case involved a patient who alleged that she was assaulted by a doctor while recovering from surgery in a hospital recovery room. The court considered whether the hospital could be held liable for the conduct of its employee and whether the hospital staff failed to take steps to protect the patient.

The case raised questions about the limits of employer responsibility for employee conduct and the duty owed by hospital staff to patients who may be unable to protect themselves. The court examined how these legal principles apply when harm is caused by a hospital employee acting for personal reasons and when hospital staff may have been in a position to observe warning signs before the harm occurred.

Background Facts

Published on: February 16, 2026

Church Could Face Claims for Negligent Retention and Supervision. Kenneth R. v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, 229 A.D.2d 159 (2d Dep’t 1997)

by Stephen Bilkis

In Kenneth R. v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, the Appellate Division, considered whether a religious institution could be sued for claims based on its handling of a priest who later sexually abused children. The case did not turn on whether the abuse occurred. The priest had already pleaded guilty to sexual abuse in the third degree based on the conduct alleged in the civil action. Instead, the court examined which legal theories could proceed against the Diocese itself.

Background Facts

The plaintiffs alleged that between July 1983 and August 1989 they were sexually abused by Enrique Diaz Jimenez, an ordained Roman Catholic priest. The abuse formed the basis for civil claims against both Jimenez and the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn. Jimenez later pleaded guilty to sexual abuse in the third degree based on this conduct.

Published on: January 26, 2026

Failure to Exhaust and Deliberate Indifference Standards Applied to Inmate Medical Claim. Sonds v. St. Barnabas Correctional Health Services, 151 F. Supp. 2d 303 (S.D.N.Y. 2001)

by Stephen Bilkis

When an incarcerated person claims that prison officials denied medical care, federal law sets clear requirements. Before filing a lawsuit in federal court, an inmate must first use the prison grievance system. In addition, to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for denial of medical care, the inmate must show that officials were deliberately indifferent to a serious medical need. Courts apply both procedural and substantive rules in reviewing these cases.

In Sonds v. St. Barnabas Correctional Health Services, 151 F. Supp. 2d 303 (S.D.N.Y. 2001), the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York examined both requirements. The court addressed whether the plaintiff exhausted administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act and whether the facts alleged satisfied the constitutional standard for deliberate indifference.

Background Facts

Published on: January 16, 2026

Liability for inmate-on-inmate assault. Sanchez v. State of New York, 99 N.Y.2d 247 (2002)

by Stephen Bilkis

Under New York law, the State has a duty to protect inmates in its custody from reasonably foreseeable harm. In correctional facilities, this duty includes taking reasonable steps to prevent assaults by other inmates. The State is not an insurer of inmate safety. It is responsible only for risks that it knew or should have known about under the circumstances.

In Sanchez v. State of New York, 99 N.Y.2d 247 (2002), the Court of Appeals addressed how courts should analyze foreseeability in an inmate-on-inmate assault case. The decision clarified the scope of the State’s duty and explained when a negligence claim against the State may proceed to trial.

Background Facts

Published on: January 9, 2026

Correctional Facility Liability for Inmate Assault: Rodriguez v. City of New York, 38 A.D.3d 349 (1st Dep’t 2007)

by Stephen Bilkis

New York law requires correctional authorities to take reasonable steps to protect inmates from foreseeable harm. While the State and municipalities are not insurers of inmate safety, they owe a duty of care to safeguard those in custody from reasonably foreseeable risks, including inmate-on-inmate violence. When an assault occurs in a detention facility, courts examine whether officials had actual or constructive notice of a risk and whether they failed to take reasonable measures to prevent harm. In Rodriguez v. City of New York, 38 A.D.3d 349 (1st Dep’t 2007), the Appellate Division, First Department, reviewed whether the City could be held liable for a razor attack committed by one inmate against another inside a segregation unit.

Background Facts

On March 26, 1995, Alex Rivera was sleeping in his cell at the New York City Adolescent Reception and Detention Center in the Bronx. While he slept, another inmate, Curtis Armstrong, slashed him with a razor. Rivera sustained cuts to the back of his neck, the side of his face, and his arms.

Published on: January 2, 2026

Federal Court Reviews Excessive Force and Medical Care Claims in Newland v. Achute, 932 F. Supp. 529 (S.D.N.Y. 1996)

by Stephen Bilkis

Federal law allows incarcerated individuals to bring civil rights claims when they believe their constitutional rights were violated. Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a person may sue state actors for conduct that deprives them of rights protected by the United States Constitution. In the prison setting, the Eighth Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. Courts have held that this protection applies to claims involving excessive force and denial of medical care. In Newland v. Achute, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York examined whether a former inmate presented sufficient evidence to proceed with claims that correction staff used excessive force and denied him proper medical treatment.

Background Facts

Wayne C. Newland was incarcerated at the Adolescent Reception Detention Center (ARDC) on Rikers Island in December 1991. He had pleaded guilty to criminal possession of stolen property and was awaiting sentencing. According to court records, the facility had an order requiring that he be produced in court on December 18, 1991 for sentencing.

Published on: August 3, 2025

Slip-and-Fall Lawsuit Over Poor Lighting Moves Forward. Pelletteri v. Ferrantino & Co., Inc., 2024 NY Slip Op 50647(U)

by Stephen Bilkis

In Pelletteri v. Ferrantino & Co., Inc., 2024 NY Slip Op 50647(U), the Supreme Court of Kings County reviewed motions for summary judgment in a personal injury case where the plaintiff alleged she fell due to poor lighting and an unmarked single step.

Background Facts

On March 6, 2020, at approximately 6:20 p.m., Joanne G. Pelletteri was making a food delivery at a building located at 8414 4th Avenue in Brooklyn, New York. The property was owned by Ferrantino and Company, Inc.

Published on: June 24, 2025

Injury After Diving from Dock Leads to Premises Liability Claim. Sess v. McGorry, 2019 NY Slip Op 51106(U) (Sup. Ct. Suffolk County 2019)

by Stephen Bilkis

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: June 19, 2025

Product Design Liability and Circular Saws. Voss v. Black & Decker Mfg. Co., 59 N.Y.2d 102 (1983)

by Stephen Bilkis

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.