Articles Posted in Premises Liability

Published on:

by

Plaintiff goes on to explain that she relocated to the Philadelphia area after September 30th because I obtained a job more suited to my financial and professional needs in the Philadelphia area.

The injury case law defendants cite is distinguishable. In Katz v Siroty, the defendant appealed an order denying his motion to change the venue of the action from Kings County to Westchester County. The plaintiff had maintained a home in Westchester County for 20 years, his two children attended public school in Scarsdale, he was a registered voter in Scarsdale, and he filed income tax returns as a resident of Scarsdale, He also claimed exclusive use of a bedroom in his sister’s and brother-in-law’s home in Kings County. In reversing the trial court and determining that the Kings County venue did not constitute a residence, the Second Department held that the plaintiff’s occasional use of the bedroom in his sister and brother-in-law’s home does not support his contention that he has a second residence in Brooklyn. The Second Department went on to explain: Although a person may have more than one residence for venue purposes, to consider a place as such, he must stay there for some time and have the bona fide intent to retain the place as a residence for some length of time and with some degree of permanency. Residence requires more stability than a brief sojourn for business, social or recreational activities. The mere fact that plaintiff uses the Brooklyn home of his sister and brother-in-law as a stopover for convenience and to sleep there when in the area on business, does not establish a residence.

Here, however, plaintiffs stay in New York County was neither brief nor occasional, and cannot be considered a mere stopover.

Continue reading

by
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

by

The facts in Blake v Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. Co., are similar to those herein. In Blake, the plaintiffs took title to a house in Westchester County on July 20, 1999, while still residing in Bronx County. Then, on August 11, 1999, the plaintiffs commenced an action, basing venue on Bronx County, where they had lived for years. In affirming the Supreme Court’s denial to change venue to Westchester County, the First Department stated: There is no dispute that plaintiffs continued to live only in the Bronx apartment while their new house was being painted, repaired and furnished, and did not move until the end of August. The First Department went on to reject defendants’ argument that because plaintiffs did not intend to remain in the Bronx apartment for some length of time or with some degree of permanency at the time of the commencement of the action, Bronx County is not a proper venue. The Court held: Absent evidence that plaintiffs continued to live in the Bronx apartment until after the commencement of the action for the sole purpose of obtaining an advantageous venue, no basis exists to disturb the motion court’s finding, made after a hearing, that plaintiffs were bona fide Bronx County residents at the commencement of the injury action.

Further, the First Department points out that a subsequent change of residence to another county does not invalidate the original designation based upon plaintiff’s residence at the time of the commencement of the action. In Iassinski, the plaintiffs commenced a personal injury action on or about November 9, 1992, electing New York County as the venue based on their alleged residence there. Plaintiffs had moved by the time they served their Bill of Particulars on March 22, 1993, four months later. After the defendants’ moved to change venue to Queens County, the plaintiffs confirmed that their residence had since changed to Queens, but averred that at the time of the commencement of the action they resided in New York County. In reversing the trial court, the First Department held, inter alia, that a subsequent change of residence to another county does not invalidate the original designation based upon plaintiffs’ residence at the time of the commencement of the action.

In Cardona, the plaintiffs commenced a personal injury action on May 2, 1988, designating Bronx County as the place of venue based upon their residence. In its motion to change venue, the defendant argued that because plaintiffs no longer live in Bronx County and, since that county therefore no longer has any nexus with the action, venue should be in New York County. The First Department rejected such reasoning, holding that a plaintiff who has designated a county of appropriate venue is under no obligation to make any showing that the county designated is in any way preferable to the one to which the change is sought unless and until the party seeking the change has made an adequate showing as to the convenience of material witnesses and the furtherance of justice.

Continue reading

by
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

by

In this personal injury action brought by plaintiff JC, defendants Mr. HS and LLC Realty move for an order, pursuant to CPLR §511, to change venue to Westchester County.

Plaintiff commenced this action through the service of a Summons and Complaint on September 30, 2009. Her Summons lists the basis of venue as her residence, 214 East 83rd Street, Apt. 5A, New York, New York 10028. In her Complaint, plaintiff alleges that Mr. HS is the owner of 214 East 83rd Street, New York, New York, the premises, and Realty is the management company of the premises. Plaintiff further alleges that on or about July 2, 2009, as a result of defendants’ negligence, she fell down an interior staircase of the premises, and suffered serious injury .

Defendants contend that, pursuant to CPLR §503(a), venue is based on the parties’ residence at the time of commencement of the action. For corporations such as Realty, residency is determined by the county where its principal place of business is listed on its certificate of incorporation. As Mr. Mr. HS resides at 10 Forthill Lane, Scarsdale, New York, New York, 10583, and Realty is a domestic limited liability company incorporated in Westchester County, with its principal office in Westchester County, defendants’ residency is Westchester County.

Continue reading

by
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

by

The plaintiff in the case is Rickie Scott, et al. The defendant in the case is the City of New York. The judge for this case is Martin M. Solomon.

The Case

The defendant in the case, Bertram Fields, is moving for an order to grant him a summary judgment that dismisses the complaint by the plaintiff. Through a separate motion in the case, the defendant Merco Properties, Inc., is moving for the same relief. The City of New York submits an affirmation that joins in the plaintiff’s opposition to the respective judgments of summary motions made by the defendants.

Continue reading

Published on:

by

A married woman owned a property with a two-car garage. She decided to renovate the two-car garage by making it over into a guesthouse with a fireplace. She hired a general contractor to secure the necessary permits and licenses needed for the project; to hire and to supervise sub-contractors for each and every phase of the work; and to purchase insurance to shield the owner from suits in damages for any accidents that may occur during the renovation at the worksite.

The general contractor hired a company that constructs and installs drywall. It also hired a rock supplier to provide and install sheet rock as flooring. A man was hired by the rock supplier to deliver 16-foot sheet rock. A New York Injury Lawyer said he drove the truck on which the sheet rock was delivered. He also operated the boom that lifted the sheet rock from the truck bed to the forklift. A foreman from the general contractor told him to just bring the sheet rock into the garage and rest them on the long wall. The man and his helper took one sheet rock and carried it between the two of them. They entered the garage. When they got to the room where they were supposed to pile the sheet rock, the man’s right foot slipped into a hole on the cement floor of the worksite that measured about sixteen inches in diameter. There was a pipe that protruded from the hole and the man tripped on this and fell. The man could not see where he was going as he and his helper carried the sheet rock in between them. His slip and fall made him land on the sheet rock which fell and broke.

The man sustained serious personal injury and sued the owner of the premises (premises liability), her husband, the general contractor, the drywall installer, and the rock supplier for common law negligence and for negligence under the labor code to compensate him for the damages he sustained as a result of his personal injury.

Continue reading

Published on:

by

The plaintiff in this case is J. Leonard Spokek. The defendant is the Liberty Mutual Insurance Company.

The Case

A New York Injury Lawyer said that the plaintiff filed an action declaring that Liberty Mutual Insurance Company must defend and indemnify the plaintiffs from Cohen V. Spodek, Index Number 3456/87. The defendants from the initial case were Nevin Cohen and Kenneth Skrudna. Index Number 3456/87, was filed in the Civil Court of Kings County, and included Liberty Mutual (the defendant) appealing a judgment dated September 27th, 1988 from the Supreme Court of King’s County which granted that relief.

Continue reading

Published on:

by

The plaintiff is the case is Marcia Spalma. The defendants in the case are the Lawrence Towers Apartments, LLC, and AMA, Inc.

About the Case

The defendants/movants in the case, Lawrence Towers Apartments LLC and AMA, Inc., move for a summary judgment to dismiss the complaint made against them by the plaintiff. Alternatively, a Manhattan Personal Injury Lawyer said the defendants/movants seek the case’s dismissal because allegedly the plaintiff released the defendants from liability from the personal injuries that she sustained. Additionally, the defendants/movants seek the case to be dismissed because the injuries obtained by the plaintiff were not caused by a toxic substance or mold. The defendants/movants seek a hearing based on the case of Frye versus the United States in order to contest the scientific basis of the cause of her alleged injuries.

Continue reading

Published on:

by

The plaintiff in the case is William Stout. In action number 1, the third party defendants are East 66th Street Corporation and the plaintiffs and respondents in the third party action is Tishman Construction Corporation. In the second action the defendant and respondent is Interstate Fire and Casualty Company and the appellants and defendants is the Zurich American Insurance Company.

The case is being heard in the New York State Supreme Court in the Appellate Division. The judges in the case are Mark C. Dillon, J.P., Ariel E. Belen, JJ, Ruth C. Balkin, and John M. Leventhal.

Case Facts

Continue reading

Published on:

by

The respondent in the case is James Davis. The respondent is represented by Jacobs, Jacobs & Giulini, Brooklyn, and Michael R. Scolnick. The appellant in the case is Bamboo 234 Restaurant, Inc. The appellant is represented by Henry Wolfman, from New York City and by Herbert Minster from Brooklyn.

The case is being held in the Second Division of the Supreme Court, Appellate Division. The judges in the case are Rabin, P.J., Hopkins, Munder, Martuscello, and Shapiro, JJ.

Court Memorandum

Continue reading

Published on:

by

A woman in Puerto Rico sued a Delaware corporation that manufactures blood analyzing machines. The complaint alleged that the Delaware Corporation had a manufacturing plant in Puerto Rico. The complaint alleged that the manufacturing plant continually discharged toxins from 1971 until 1981 into a creek that flowed into another creek that caused pollution and contamination of the soil, water and air in the neighborhood where the Puerto Rican woman lived and caused her sickness.

A New York Injury Lawyer said in its Answer, the Delaware Corporation admitted that it had intentionally discharged industrial wastes which flowed into the creek in 1979 but that after that, it began transporting its industrial wastes for disposal at a waste treatment facility. It also forwarded the defense that its intentional discharge of its industrial waste was not prohibited by its existing permits at that time.

In that personal injury case filed in the US territory of Puerto Rico, the Delaware Corporation asked the Superior Court to include as third party defendants around fifteen insurance corporations which had issued general and comprehensive insurance to the Delaware Corporation. The Delaware Corporation demanded that these fifteen insurance corporations indemnify it under the terms of its insurance policies and also provide the Delaware Corporation with defenses to protect itself against the personal injury suit filed by the Puerto Rican woman.

Continue reading

Contact Information