Articles Posted in Personal Injury

Published on:

by

In this medical malpractice case, the court must decide whether the plaintiff’s expert testimony was sufficient to rebut the defendant’s expert’s testimony which established a prima facie showing supporting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissal.

Plaintiff Peterson filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against defendant Dr. Garber. In her claim, the plaintiff asserted that the defendant improperly performed amniocentesis, and as a result her infant son’s right eye was penetrated with a needle. Plaintiff alleges that this caused her baby to suffer a condition called microphthalmia (small eye). In addition, her baby is blind in that eye and must wear an ocular prosthesis. Defendant Garber filed a motion for summary judgment dismissal of the case, asserting that the baby’s condition was not caused by improper amniocentesis, but was actually a developmental anomaly.

When a defendant files a motion for summary judgment dismissal, the defendant has the burden of presenting a prima facie case that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that based on the undisputed facts, the defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. If the defendant offers a prima facie showing, then the burden shifts to the plaintiff.

Published on:

by

The plaintiffs in this case are Angel Hunter, who is an infant and represented by his mother, Lisa Aveta, and Lisa Aveta for herself. The defendants in the case are Richmond University Medical Center, Michael Moretti, M.D. and Marino A. Poliseno, D.O. The case is being heard in the Richmond County Supreme Court.

Case Background

Angel, who is an infant in this case, is represented by her mother Aveta. During her deposition, Aveta said that there were diabetes, deafness, brain tumors, and Down’s syndrome, in her family history. A New York Personal Injury Lawyer said she personally has a history of asthma and seizure disorder. She has also had a gynecological surgery. Aveta has been pregnant 14 times and 9 of those times ended in a spontaneous abortion and one ended in neonatal death. Two of her children, including Angel, have seizure disorder. Aveta also has had deliveries that are premature.

Continue reading

Published on:

by

The claimant in this case is Alice D. The defendant of the case is William M. The case is being heard in the New York County Harlem Small Claims Court. Both the claimant and the defendant are representing themselves in the case. The Honorable David B. Saxe is overseeing the case.

Case Introduction

This case revolves around the issue of a man and a woman having sexual intercourse that resulted in a pregnancy. A New York Injury Lawyer told the man told the woman that he was sterile at the time they had sexual relations. She is suing him for the cost of the abortion and related expenses as a result of the pregnancy.

Continue reading

Published on:

by

This is a case of appeal being heard in the Second Department of the Supreme Court Appellate Division. The appellant in the case is Rita Prado. The respondents of the case are the Catholic Medical Center of Brooklyn and Queens, Inc. et al.

Case History

The plaintiff is appealing a verdict from a medical malpractice suit that was heard in the Queens County Supreme Court. The original verdict made by the Supreme Court was in favor of the defendants, granting a summary judgment in the case. A New York Injury Lawyer said the complaint made by the plaintiff was dismissed.

Continue reading

Published on:

by

This is a case of alleged neglect of two children; Kamiyah C. and Janiyah T. both are under the age of eighteen. The respondents of the case and the two people accused of neglecting the children are Amanda T. and Lateek C. The case is being heard in the Family Court of Kings County.

Case Background

A New York Injury Lawyer said the respondent mother, Amanda T. is the mother of both of the children in question. Lateek C., the respondent father, is Kamiyah’s father and is personally responsible for Janiyah. The two children were removed from the home of the respondents on the 30th of January, 2007.

Continue reading

Published on:

by

This case involves the plaintiff Siobhan Dennehy, who is the adminstratrix for the estate of Victor Pauta who is deceased versus the McGraw Hudson Construction Corporation and owner of 340 Madison. The McGraw Hudson Construction Corporation is also the plaintiff against the third party defendants All State Interior Demolition and High Rise Hoisting and Scaffolding. Additionally, a New York Injury Lawyer said the All State Interior Demolition Inc and High Rise Hoisting and Scaffolding are second third party plaintiffs against Site Safety LLC, the third party defendants.

Case History

The decedent of the plaintiff, Victor Pauta, worked construction and lived in Queens County. On the 21st of June, 2005, he fell from a scaffold while working at 340 Madison Avenue, located in midtown Manhattan. He suffered injuries to his back and neck from the fall and later died as a result.

Continue reading

Published on:

by

This case is being heard in the Supreme Court of the State of New York in New York County. The case involves the matter of an Application of MVAIC to vacate an Arbitration Award. MVAIC is the petitioner of the case. The respondents in the case are Geico Insurance Company, New York City East-West Acupuncture, and PC A/A/O Chun Hong Li. The Judge overseeing the case is Joan B. Lobis.

Case

The petitioner, MVAIC or Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation, moves for an order to vacate an order that was awarded by the Lower Arbitrator and affirmed by the Master Arbitrator. The petitioner seeks an entry of judgment on their behalf that dismisses the case with prejudice. The respondents are currently in default as they have not submitted any opposition papers in this case.

Continue reading

Published on:

by

Birth Injury 129

The plaintiffs of the case are Alexander Perez and Invannia Mieses- Perez. The defendants of the case are the University Hospital of Columbia and Cornell, Nicole Rodney, Jack Maidman M.D., Kimberly Mathis M.D., Sharmilee Bansal M.D., and Joshua Holden M.D. The case is being heard in the State of New York Supreme Court.

Case History

Continue reading

Published on:

by

The female complainant was a public charge from the time of her birth and maintained by the County Welfare Department infants’ homes and foster homes. She was married and was removed from the Welfare rolls.

A New York Injury Lawyer said in 1955 the complainant was involved in an automobile accident. By the order of the County Supreme Court, the infant’s settlement was allowed and bills were ordered paid to the County Welfare Department as reimbursement as a fifty percent compromise for sums paid by said Department to the hospital and the balance was ordered paid over to the Commissioner of Social Welfare as general guardian of the infant, jointly with the Guardianship Department of the Surrogate’s Court. The Welfare Department’s allegation that the money was expended on behalf of complainant from the date of her birth to shortly before her marriage appears to be unchallenged. By an order of a Judge, the sum of $4,012.95 then in the infant’s guardianship account was ordered to be paid to the Commissioner of Social Welfare as part reimbursement for the support, care and maintenance furnished by the County Department of Social Welfare. The pending proceeding is for an order setting aside the aforesaid order of the Surrogate’s Court and directing an accounting by the Commissioner of Social Services and payment of the funds to the complainants.

There appears to be no question but that the sums of money involved were in the guardianship account as a result of the infant’s settlement for personal injuries. The complainant’s theory is that funds of an infant from a personal injury settlement may not be applied for care and maintenance. Many cases in the State promulgate the theory.

Continue reading

Published on:

by

On 11 October 2006, plaintiff was caused to trip and fallupon a defect in the sidewalk in front of 14 Willow Place, Brooklyn, property owned by defendant.

Plaintiff, together with her husband, has filed a verified complaint against defendant and the City of New York on the ground of the aforesaid trip and fall.

The alleged defect is described as “a raised edge of a sidewalk concrete flag and the raised portion of the flag which was located in the pedestrian portion of the sidewalk located approximately 140 feet south of the south curb of Joralemon Street and approximately 2.5 to 3 feet west of the west curb of Willow Place and next to a large tree situated next to the said curb of Willow Place in front of premises 14 Willow Place, Brooklyn, New York, which sidewalk flag was protruding up approximately 3 inches from the rest of the walk on the date concerned.

Continue reading

Contact Information