Personal Injury

Published on: July 17, 2023

Court determined that the NYCHA should have known about a dangerous condition. Nunez v. New York City Housing Authority, 65 A.D.3d 955 (2d Dep’t 2009)

by Stephen Bilkis

Premises liability is a legal concept that holds property owners and occupiers responsible for injuries that occur on their property due to their failure to maintain safe conditions. This means that property owners have a legal obligation to ensure that their property is free from any hazards or defects that could cause harm to people who visit the property. If a property owner or occupier fails to fulfill this duty, and someone is injured as a result, the owner or occupier may be held liable for the resulting damages. Premises liability cases can arise in a variety of contexts, including slip and fall accidents, dog bites, swimming pool accidents, and more.

Nunez v. New York City Housing Authority involves a dispute over the liability of a property owner for injuries sustained by a tenant. The case highlights the legal principles governing premises liability and the duty of property owners to maintain safe premises.

Factual Background

Published on: July 12, 2023

In a case where a police officer driving a patrol car caused an accident, the court considered whether sovereign immunity applied. Salas v. City of New York, 174 A.D.3d 991 (2d Dep’t 2019)

by Stephen Bilkis

Salas v. City of New York involves the legal concept of sovereign immunity. The case is particularly relevant to individuals who seek damages from municipal corporations and highlights the importance of understanding the limitations of sovereign immunity.

Factual Background

The incident in question occurred on November 11, 2011, in the City of New York. The plaintiff, Ana Salas, was a passenger in a vehicle that was struck by a New York City Police Department (NYPD) vehicle driven by Officer Peter Agosto. The accident caused Salas to sustain serious injuries.

Published on: July 10, 2023

Court considered whether the doctrine of highway defect immunity applied to a wrongful death lawsuit against a municipality. Estate of Fuentes v. Town of Islip, 148 A.D.3d 845 (2d Dep’t 2017)

by Stephen Bilkis

The Estate of Fuentes v. Town of Islip addresses the issue of the responsibility of municipal corporations to maintain their roadways in a reasonably safe condition for the public.

Factual Background

The incident in question occurred on February 8, 2007, on Brentwood Road in the Town of Islip. The decedent, Luis Fuentes, was driving his vehicle when he struck a pothole and lost control of the vehicle, causing a fatal accident. The estate of Fuentes subsequently filed a lawsuit against the Town of Islip, alleging negligence in failing to maintain the roadway in a reasonably safe condition.

Published on: July 5, 2023

Court considered whether the City of New York had a duty to provide additional safety measures beyond those already in place in order to prevent pedestrian accidents. Brown v. City of New York, 945 N.Y.S.2d 390 (2d Dep’t 2012)

by Stephen Bilkis

Brown v. City of New York is a notable case in the field of municipal liability in New York. The case involved a tragic accident in which a young boy was struck and killed by a car while crossing the street in front of his school. The boy’s family filed a lawsuit against the City of New York, alleging that the city was negligent in failing to provide adequate safety measures to protect children crossing the street.

Factual Background

On the morning of February 28, 2007, Amar Diarrassouba, a six-year-old boy, was crossing the street in front of his school in Harlem when he was struck by a car and killed. The boy’s family filed a lawsuit against the City of New York, alleging that the city was negligent in failing to provide adequate safety measures for children crossing the street.

Published on: July 3, 2023

Appellate Division considered whether a social host who serves alcohol to an intoxicated person can be held liable for injuries caused by that person to a third party. Vincent v. John Doe #1, 640 N.Y.S.2d 864 (2d Dep’t 1996)

by Stephen Bilkis

In the case of Vincent v. John Doe #1, the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, considered the issue of whether a social host who serves alcohol to an intoxicated person can be held liable for injuries caused by that person to a third party. The case has significant implications for the social host liability doctrine in New York.

Factual Background

The plaintiff, Charles Vincent, was a passenger in a car driven by his friend, John McLaughlin, who had been drinking at a party hosted by the defendant, John Doe #1. McLaughlin lost control of the car and crashed, causing Vincent to sustain serious injuries. Vincent filed a lawsuit against McLaughlin and Doe #1, alleging that Doe #1 had served alcohol to McLaughlin, knowing that he was already intoxicated, and was therefore responsible for the injuries sustained in the accident.

Published on: June 28, 2023

The Appellate Division considered whether a hospital can be held liable for injuries sustained by a patient who leaves the hospital against medical advice. Estate of Zani v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 103 A.D.3d 590 (1st Dep’t 2013)

by Stephen Bilkis

In Estate of Zani v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., the New York Appellate Division addressed the issue of whether a hospital can be held liable for injuries sustained by a patient who leaves the hospital against medical advice. The case is significant because it clarifies the extent of a hospital’s duty to its patients and provides guidance on the circumstances under which a hospital can be held liable for injuries sustained by a patient. This blog post will provide an overview of the factual background, holding, and discussion of the case, before concluding with an analysis of its implications for hospital liability.

Factual Background

The plaintiff in Zani was the estate of a man who had been admitted to the hospital for treatment of alcohol withdrawal. The plaintiff alleged that the hospital was negligent in allowing the decedent to leave the hospital against medical advice and without proper precautions.

Published on: June 26, 2023

Court of Appeals considered whether plaintiff’s wrongful death claim was properly dismissed. Adames v. Sheepshead Bay Rd. R.R. Co., 303 N.Y. 208 (1951)

by Stephen Bilkis

In Adames v. Sheepshead Bay Rd. R.R. Co., the New York Court of Appeals addressed the issue of whether a common carrier can be held liable for injuries sustained by a passenger when the passenger voluntarily disembarks from the carrier’s vehicle before reaching their destination. The case is significant because it clarifies the scope of a common carrier’s duty to its passengers and provides guidance on the circumstances under which a carrier can be held liable for injuries sustained by a passenger.

Factual Background

The plaintiff in Adames was a passenger on a bus operated by the Sheepshead Bay Road Railroad Company. The bus was traveling along Ocean Parkway in Brooklyn when the plaintiff signaled the driver to stop so that he could disembark. The plaintiff exited the bus and began to walk across the street, but was struck by a passing car and sustained serious injuries.

Published on: June 21, 2023

Injured worker can sue third party for damages even if workers’ compensation benefits have been paid. Brescia v. G.F. Hämmerle, Inc., 7 N.Y.2d 544 (1960)

by Stephen Bilkis

Brescia v. G.F. Hämmerle, Inc. highlights the rights of injured individuals to pursue damages beyond the scope of workers’ compensation benefits. New York workers’ compensation is a system designed to provide benefits to employees who are injured or become ill on the job. Under New York law, most employers are required to carry workers’ compensation insurance to cover their employees in case of a workplace injury or illness. The benefits available under New York workers’ compensation include medical treatment, lost wages, and disability benefits.

While workers’ compensation benefits can provide important financial support to injured workers, they are often limited in scope and may not fully compensate an injured worker for their losses. In some cases, injured workers may be entitled to pursue additional compensation through a personal injury lawsuit against a third party who may be responsible for their injuries.

Background

Published on: June 14, 2023

Comparative negligence in a Pedestrian Car Accident Case. Kozlowski v. Ringler, 189 A.D.2d 1025 (4th Dep’t 1993)

by Stephen Bilkis

Pedestrian accidents are a significant public health concern that can cause devastating injuries, permanent disabilities, and fatalities. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), pedestrian deaths accounted for 17% of all traffic fatalities in the United States in 2019. Despite the increasing awareness and efforts to reduce pedestrian accidents, they remain a significant problem. In Kozlowski v. Ringler, the court discussed determining liability in pedestrian accidents, including the concept of comparative liability.

In New York, comparative negligence is a legal doctrine that applies in pedestrian car accident cases. This means that the pedestrian’s own negligence or fault in the accident may reduce the amount of compensation they can recover. If the pedestrian is found to be partially at fault, the court will apportion fault between the parties based on their respective degrees of fault.

Background

Published on: May 31, 2023

Liability in an accident that involved a motorcycle and a pothole. Karamian v. City of New York, 16 A.D.3d 255 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)

by Stephen Bilkis

Potholes are a common cause of motorcycle accidents in New York, with riders being particularly vulnerable to their hazards. The deep, irregular gaps in the road can cause a loss of control or balance, leading to collisions, falls, and serious injuries. When a motorcyclist is injured in an accident that involved a pothole, who is liable?

Karamian v. City of New York involved a motorcyclist who was injured after his motorcycle hit a pothole on a city street. The plaintiff, Mr. Karamian, sued the City of New York for negligence, alleging that the city was responsible for maintaining safe roadways and that its failure to repair the pothole was the direct cause of his injuries. The case eventually made its way to the New York Appellate Division.

Background