Personal Injury

Published on: May 11, 2025

When Is a Dog Owner Liable for a Dog Bite in New York? Collier v. Zambito, 1 NY3d 444 (2004)

by Stephen Bilkis

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.

Published on: May 3, 2025

New York Court Limits Animal Injury Claims to Vicious Propensity Rule. Bard v. Jahnke, 6 N.Y.3d 592 (2006)

by Stephen Bilkis

In Bard v. Jahnke, the New York Court of Appeals addressed whether a property owner could be held liable for injuries caused by a domestic animal—specifically, a dairy bull—under a common-law negligence theory. The court considered whether an owner could be held responsible for failing to warn or restrain an animal that, while not previously aggressive, belonged to a class known to be dangerous.

Background Facts

On September 27, 2001, Larry Bard, a self-employed carpenter, visited Hemlock Valley Farms, a dairy farm in Otsego County. He had been invited by another carpenter, John Timer, to assist with repairs to cow mattresses in the barn’s “low cow district.” Timer had previously worked on various farm tasks and was asked to do this job by one of the farm owners’ sons. Neither Timer nor Bard saw any animals when they walked through the barn that morning.

Published on: April 16, 2025

Summary Judgment Granted to City After Park Injury Involving Metal Panel. K.B. v. City of Mount Vernon, 2024 NY Slip Op 04299 (App. Div. 2d Dep’t Aug. 28, 2024)

by Stephen Bilkis

In K.B. v. City of Mount Vernon, 2024 NY Slip Op 04299, the Appellate Division, Second Department addressed whether the City of Mount Vernon could be held liable for injuries allegedly caused by a defect in a public park. The infant plaintiff was injured when a hinged metal panel covering a water meter pit gave way.

Background Facts

The incident occurred in a public park owned by the City of Mount Vernon. The infant plaintiff was walking in the park when one of two hinged metal panels covering a water meter pit gave way beneath her. As a result, she allegedly suffered personal injuries.

Published on: February 28, 2025

Worker Injured After Fall from Ladder Recovered Under Labor Law § 240(1). Dibrino v. Rockefeller Center North, Inc., 2024 NY Slip Op 03558 (1st Dept.)

by Stephen Bilkis

The Appellate Division, First Department, decided the case of Dibrino v. Rockefeller Center North, Inc. on July 2, 2024. The case involved a construction worker who fell from a ladder on a commercial job site in Manhattan. The key question was whether the defendants violated New York Labor Law § 240(1), which requires owners and contractors to provide safety devices that protect workers from elevation-related risks.

Background Facts

Plaintiff Dominick Dibrino worked for a subcontractor named Jacobson & Company, which handled drywall and ceiling installation. The project took place on the fifth floor of a commercial property located at 1271 Avenue of the Americas. Rockefeller Center North, Inc. owned the property, and JRM Construction Management LLC served as the general contractor. JRM hired DAL Electrical Corporation as the electrical subcontractor.

Published on: February 19, 2025

Ladder Fall Caused by Worker’s Own Actions Did Not Support Labor Law § 240(1) Claim Blake v. Neighborhood Housing Services, N.Y. City, 1 N.Y.3d 280 (2003)

by Stephen Bilkis

In Blake v. Neighborhood Housing Services, N.Y. City, the New York Court of Appeals addressed whether a worker injured while using a ladder could recover under Labor Law § 240(1) when the ladder provided proper protection and the worker’s own actions were the only cause of the fall. This case clarified the limits of liability under the statute and reaffirmed that not every fall from a ladder results in an automatic finding of liability. The court focused on whether the defendant violated the statute and whether that violation caused the injury.

Background Facts

Rupert Blake owned a contracting company and was hired to perform renovation work at a two-family home in the Bronx. The homeowner had received financing from Neighborhood Housing Services of New York City (NHS), a nonprofit lender. NHS provided a work estimate and a list of possible contractors. The homeowner selected Blake, and NHS had no further involvement in directing the work.

Published on: February 13, 2025

Court Dismissed Case After Plaintiff Gave Wrong Date in Notice of Claim Garland v City of New York, 2025 NY Slip Op 01991

by Stephen Bilkis

In Garland v City of New York, 2025 NY Slip Op 01991, the Appellate Division, Second Department, reviewed whether a lawsuit could go forward when the plaintiff gave the wrong date of the alleged injury in the required notice of claim. The case involved a person who said she was hurt while trying to get on a city bus.

Background Facts

Theresa Garland claimed that she was injured while boarding a bus. She said the fall happened on June 13, 2015. However, when she filed her notice of claim—a document that must be submitted before suing a city agency—she wrote that the injury occurred on June 9, 2015.

Published on: February 3, 2025

Court Ordered MTA Bus Company to Provide GPS Data in Injury Case Smith-Percival v MTA Bus Co., 2024 NY Slip Op 06000

by Stephen Bilkis

The case of Smith-Percival v MTA Bus Co., 2024 NY Slip Op 06000, focused on whether certain discovery requests should be enforced in a personal injury lawsuit. While the claim centered on an injury suffered by a passenger, the legal issue before the Appellate Division, Second Department, was about the production of GPS and route records. These documents could provide facts needed to prepare for trial and determine whether the defendants contributed to the plaintiff’s injuries. The court’s ruling addressed what information must be shared and how far a defendant must go to comply with discovery in a personal injury case involving public transportation.

Background Facts

On December 22, 2017, Merlene Smith-Percival was riding on a bus operated by the MTA Bus Company when the bus came into contact with a vehicle belonging to the New York City Police Department. Smith-Percival claimed that she was injured during the incident.

Published on: December 27, 2024

Court allowed late claims against Suffolk County for well water contamination linked to airport operations. Brooks v. Cnty. of Suffolk, 177 A.D.3d 969 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)

by Stephen Bilkis

In a case involving claims of water contamination, the Supreme Court of Suffolk County faced the question of whether to grant a late notice of claim against a public entity. This case centered on residents whose well water was allegedly contaminated due to the County of Suffolk’s operation of Gabreski Airport. The petitioners sought permission to file late notices of claim after learning about the contamination. The court ultimately ruled in favor of the petitioners, allowing them to proceed.

Background Facts

The petitioners were property owners in areas near Gabreski Airport, operated by Suffolk County. On July 22, 2016, the County released a notice warning residents about potential contamination in private wells. The contamination involved toxic chemicals, specifically perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), which were reportedly linked to firefighting foam used at the airport.

Published on: December 23, 2024

Court allowed late notice of claim after trip-and-fall injury at school due to timely knowledge. Messick v. Greenwood Lake Union Free Sch. Dist., 84 N.Y.S.3d 215 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018)

by Stephen Bilkis

In a legal dispute involving a trip-and-fall incident at Greenwood Lake Middle School, a petitioner sought permission to file a late notice of claim against the school district. The issue centered on whether the delay in filing caused prejudice to the school district and if the petitioner had demonstrated sufficient grounds to justify the late notice. The case provides important insights into the standards courts apply in evaluating late notices of claim under Education Law § 3813 and General Municipal Law § 50-e(5).

Background Facts

The petitioner’s claim stemmed from an incident on December 6, 2015, when she attended her grandson’s basketball game at Greenwood Lake Middle School. While exiting the school, she tripped over unsecured floor mats in the vestibule at the main entrance. The fall caused a displaced fracture in her left femur, requiring hip replacement surgery and additional procedures to address the injury.

Published on: December 18, 2024

Petition to file late notice of claim against NYC denied due to insufficient evidence. Lobos v. City of New York, 219 A.D.3d 720 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023)

by Stephen Bilkis

The case arose from injuries sustained during a car accident allegedly caused by a high-speed police chase. The incident occurred on April 1, 2021. The petitioners were injured in a car accident when their vehicle was struck by a Mercedes that ran a red light. According to the petitioners, the Mercedes was being pursued by NYPD officers in a high-speed chase at the time of the collision. The petitioners were hospitalized following the accident.

While recovering, the petitioners claimed that an unidentified individual affiliated with the NYPD’s “internal affairs” told them about the police chase. They filed a petition on October 21, 2021, to serve a late notice of claim against the City of New York, alleging that the City’s negligence during the police pursuit contributed to their injuries. Along with their petition, they submitted affidavits and a police report. The petitioners argued that the City had actual knowledge of the incident and would not be prejudiced by the late filing.

Question Before the Court