Articles Posted in Work Injury

Published on:

A Kings Workers Compensation Lawyer said that, in an action to recover damages for personal injury, and a third-party action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring that the third-party defendant Insurance Company is obligated to defend and indemnify the defendant third-party plaintiff, in the main action, the third-party defendant Insurance Company appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated November 25, 2009, as denied that branch of its motion which was for summary judgment declaring that it is not obligated to defend and indemnify the defendant third-party plaintiff, and the defendant third-party defendant, in the main action.

A Kings Personal Injury Lawyer said that, the third-party defendant Insurance Company issued an insurance policy to the defendant third-party defendant Corporation that contained an exclusion for bodily injury to any employee of any contractor hired by or for any insured arising out of and in the course of the employee’s employment for that contractor. The defendant third-party plaintiff, then hired third-party defendant Corporation to perform work on a construction site by way of a written contract, which required third-party defendant Corporation to name defendant as an additional insured under its insurance policy. The plaintiff commenced this action against them to recover damages for personal injury he allegedly sustained while working on the project for a subcontractor hired by either defendant or third-party defendant Corporation. Defendant Insurance Company denied coverage to third-party defendant Corporation inter alia, on the ground that the employee exclusion precluded coverage. Defendant Insurance Company denied coverage to Fabian, among other things, on the same ground.

Defendant then commenced a third-party action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring that defendant Insurance Company is obligated to defend and indemnify it in the main action as an additional insured of the policy issued to third-party defendant Corporation. Defendant Insurance Company moved, among other things, for summary judgment declaring that it is not obligated to defend or indemnify them in the plaintiff’s action. In the order appealed from, the Supreme Court, inter alia, denied that branch of defendant’s Insurance Company’s motion which was for summary judgment declaring that it was not obligated to provide such a defense and indemnification.

Continue reading

Published on:

RS testified to the effect that he is the owner/president of AC Const. Co. Inc. Collaborative Construction Company, a New York corporation founded in 1997 to build high-end residences of modern architectural design primarily on the eastern end of Long Island. AC Const. Co. Inc. entered into a contract or agreement with DL to erect a one-family house at 611 lazy Point Road, Amagansett and was the general Contractor for the project and hired subcontractors for the job site. Mr. DL did not retain any authority to hire the subcontractors and did not supervise any of the work that was done at the job site from when the job was started through July 22, 2005. SD was the foreman for AC Const. Co. Inc. at the site but was on vacation on the date of the accident. RS did not know who the foreman was who replaced SD on the date of the accident, but stated the substitute foreman could make a decision about injury or call and get a decision, but that anyone other than a laborer would be able to remove a cross bar of scaffold. He did not ask any of his employees whether or not they were requested to remove the scaffold. He held safety meetings or his employees, but the subcontractors held their own safety meetings. He did not go the site on a daily basis, out typically went about two to three times a week. LGP was the concrete subcontractor on the site. AC Const. Co. Inc. had laborers specifically assigned for the purpose of cleaning up and policing the job site. He thought pipe scaffolding had been set up for some trim work around the windows or for handrail work but he did not know if it was affixed to the ground. He had hired Forge and while Forge was on the site, AC Const. Co. Inc. did not direct or control any of the work that was being done by the Forge workers and did not discuss the means or authorize me method of digging the trench. Mr. SD was not responsible for the instructions of any of the workers from forge concerning the means and authorization to dig the trenches. He never directed or controlled the work of RM.

The first cause of action is premised upon the alleged negligence of the defendants in causing injury to the plaintiff. In New York, to establish a prima facie case of negligence, a plaintiff must prove (1) that the defendant owed a duty to plaintiff, (2) a breach thereof, and (3) injury proximately resulting therefrom. If, defendant’s negligence were a substantial factor, it is considered to be a proximate cause even though other substantial factors may also have contributed to plaintiffs injury. In order to establish the third element, proximate cause, the plaintiff must show that defendant’s negligence was a substantial factor in bringing about the injury. Because a finding of negligence must be based on the breach of a duty, a threshold question in tort cases is whether the alleged tortfeasor owed a duty of care to the injured party

It is determined that the defendant AC Const. Co. Inc., as the general contractor, had a duty to maintain a safe working environment at the work site. AC Const. Co. Inc. has not demonstrated prima facie entitlement to dismissal of the cause of action premised upon negligence in that there are factual issues concerning whether it breached that duty and was negligent in supervising the work site and in not providing someone with authority at the site to move the scaffolding when asked by the plaintiff to enable him to dig the trench on the date of the construction accident. There is further factual issue concerning whether AC Const. Co. Inc. was negligent in permitting the unused concrete debris to remain at the construction site, and whether such debris impaired the plaintiffs ability to safely perform his job thus causing injury to the plaintiff.

Continue reading

Published on:

In this action the injury plaintiff, RM seeks damages for personal injuries allegedly sustained on July 22, 2005 while working as an employee of Forge Heating and Air Conditioning at the premises located at 611 Lazy point Road, Amagansett, New York. It is claimed that AC Const. Co. Inc. was the general contractor at the site pursuant to a contract entered into with DL, the owner of the premises under construction. Liability is premised upon negligence and the alleged violation of New York State Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1) and 241(6) and the Industrial Code of the State of New York 12 NYCRR sections 23-1.5; 23-1.70); 23-2.1; and 23-2.30; and Article 1926 of the Rules and Regulations of Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

The defendants seek an order granting summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the basis that the plaintiff cannot establish negligence and in that DL qualifies for the single family home exemption relative to New York State Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1) and 241 (6). In support of the motion the defendants have submitted an attorney’s affirmation; a copy of the pleadings, answer and bill of particulars; and copies of me deposition transcripts of RM dated August 14, 2008 and RS dated August 14, 2008

The plaintiff opposes this motion submitting an attorney’s affirmation and the affidavit of RM dated April 28, 2009.

Continue reading

Published on:

I was the only who witnessed the fall. She tripped on the hoses and fell forward on her hands there was no sign of injury and I helped her up. She walked away without asking for an ambulance. About an hour later she came back and asked for my name. At that time she told me that she had injured her arm and had seen a doctor. After she left I went out and took pictures of the hoses and the cones. After not hearing anything from the woman, I thought she was not going to make a claim, and did not think it was necessary to report it to my broker. Plaintiff disclaimed coverage by letter dated June 16, 2008, alleging that respondent failed to give timely notice of the claim. Plaintiff alleged that T&S was aware of the occurrence giving rise to the underlying action on about October 23, 2007, yet failed to notify them until May 21, 2008.

The issue in this construction case is whether plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment seeking a declaration that it is not obligated to defend or indemnify respondent on the grounds that it failed to provide timely notice of the claim in violation of the policy terms should be granted.

CPLR § 3212(b) requires that for a court to grant summary judgment, the court must determine if the movant’s papers justify holding, as a matter of law, “that the cause of action or defense has no merit.” It is well settled that the remedy of summary judgment, although a drastic one, is appropriate where a thorough examination of the merits clearly demonstrates the absence of any triable issues of fact. It is incumbent upon the moving party to make a prima facie showing based on sufficient evidence to warrant the court to find movant’s entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Once this showing has been made, the burden shifts to the party opposing the motion for summary judgment to produce evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to establish the existence of material issues of fact which require a trial of the action. Summary judgment should be denied when, based upon the evidence presented, there is any significant doubt as to the existence of a triable issue of fact. When there is no genuine medical issue to be resolved at trial, the case should be summarily decided.

Continue reading

Published on:

A Kings Construction Accident Lawyer said that, this declaratory judgment action arises from an incident on October 23, 2007, in which complainant allegedly tripped and fell over a hose that lay across the sidewalk adjacent to the premises at 1911 Avenue M, Brooklyn, New York (“the Premises”) and sustained bodily injuries. Thereafter, she commenced a personal injury suit pending in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Kings (“the underlying action”). Plaintiff, Insurance Company now submits this motion for summary judgment seeking a declaration that it is not obligated to defend or indemnify respondent Ton the grounds that it failed to provide timely notice of the claim in violation of the policy terms.

A Kings Back Injury Lawyer said that, plaintiff Insurance Company issued a commercial general liability insurance policy to respondent for the subject premises. The policy conditions coverage under the general liability part on receipt of prompt notice of an occurrence or offense that may give rise to a claim. Policy form CG 00 01 10 01, at Section IV – Commercial General Liability Conditions, at paragraph 2 states in relevant part: 2. Duties in the event of Occurrence, Offense, Claim or Suit a. You must see to it that we are notified as soon as practicable of an “occurrence” or an offense which may result in a claim. To the extent possible, notice should include: (1) How, when and where the “occurrence” or offense took place; (2) The names and addresses of any injured person and witnesses; and (3) The nature and location of any injury or damage arising out of the “occurrence” or offense. “Occurrence” is defined in Section V – Definitions as follows:

“Occurrence” means an accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general harmful conditions.

Continue reading

Published on:

A Kings Construction Accident Lawyer said that, in an action for a judgment declaring that the defendant is obligated to defend and indemnify the plaintiffs in an underlying personal injury action, commenced in the Supreme Court, Kings County, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated May 3, 2010, which denied their motion for summary judgment on the complaint.

The plaintiffs entered into an agreement with All American Talent (hereinafter All American), whereby All American was to rent the auditorium and three classrooms in the plaintiff Christ the King Regional High School (hereinafter the school) for two days for a dance competition. The contract required All American to name the school as an additional insured on a liability insurance policy issued to it by the defendant.

A Kings Spinal injury Lawyer said that, complainant allegedly was injured when she fell on a sidewalk while walking from the parking lot behind the school to the front entrance in order to attend the dance competition. Levine commenced an action against the present plaintiffs, alleging that her fall was caused by a sidewalk defect. The plaintiffs sought defense and indemnification in that action from the defendant, under an additional insured endorsement of a general liability policy issued by the defendant to All American.

Continue reading

Published on:

The defendant third-party plaintiff-respondent in the case is the Waltco Truck Equipment Company. The plaintiff is Mark Mandel. The Coca-Cola Company is a third-party defendant, while the Industrial Truck Body is a third-party defendant-respondent.

Court Memo

A New York Injury Lawyer said an appeal was filed by the plaintiff to recover damages for personal injuries. On September 3rd, 1996, the Kings County Supreme court granted the motion by Waltco Truck Equipment Company, and Industrial Truck Body, the defendant and a third party defendant, to dismiss the initial complaint based on the non-compliance of the plaintiff with CPLR 306-b. The summons, complaint and affidavit of service included in the cross motion was denied.

Continue reading

Published on:

The plaintiff in the case is Tower Insurance Company of New York. The defendants in the case are Jose Reyes and Camille Khan.

Case History

A New York Injury Lawyer said the case is a declaratory judgment action. The plaintiff, Tower Insurance Company of New York, is seeking a judgment to declare that it does not have a duty to indemnify or defend the defendant in a personal injury action that is titled Reyes versus Khan.

Continue reading

Published on:

A woman who settled her harassment suit against a local town president will receive $75,000 in the settlement. According to online federal court records, the settlement was negotiated on Dec. 16, 2010.

According to a New York Injury Lawyer, the lawsuit alleged that the former president inappropriately touched and made sexual comments to her. The woman was an assistant for the town’s administrator. Further, her lawsuit alleged that the Board and the president retaliated against her. She was fired from her job in December 2008. The lawsuit was filed July 6, 2010.

In the lawsuit, the woman stated that on several occasions the man called her after her work hours at home. He wanted to discuss personal matters going on in his life. He also made it aware that he expected her to travel with him during personal errands.

Continue reading

Published on:

A federal Supreme Court in Utah modified charges against a Weber County judge to include retaliation against the woman filing a harassment suit, a source was told.

The woman filed the harassment suit February 2010 in the U.S. District Court for Utah in Salt Lake City. She named the county and the judge in the revised lawsuit. According to the document, the judge is accused of conducting unwanted sexual advances to his chief court administrator. The harassment occurred for about two years, a court reporter read from the lawsuit.

Her lawyer and the woman released a key piece of evidence in their case to the media after several failed attempts to hold the judge responsible. When the state’s Judicial Conduct Commission did not do anything about the harassment, the lawyer and his client released the 11-page love poem, which the judge wrote for the woman. The poem was single-spaced and mildly erotic. These cases are of great interest to courts in New York City and Nassau.

Continue reading

Contact Information