Published on:

New York Appellate Court Decides Premises Liability Issue


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.

Plaintiff’s Argument

On the third of April in 2007, the plaintiff filed a complaint and summons against the defendants, Lawrence Towers Apartments LLC and AMA, Inc. The defendants are the owners and managers of a building that is located on Norstrand Avenue. In the month of April during the year 2003 the plaintiff moved into the building located on Norstrand Avenue. She first resided in apartment 211 of the building. Later in the month the plaintiff moved from apartment 211 into apartment 109. While living in apartment 109, the plaintiff was exposed to toxic substances (premises liability) and mold that resulted in her becoming ill. The bill of particulars stating her injuries includes obstructive airway disease, chronic obstructive disease, and bronchial asthma. In addition, she suffered from coughing, aggravated psoriasis, difficulty breathing, mental anguish, and anxiety.

Defendant’s Argument

A New York Injury Lawyer said that the defendants offer several motion papers in regard to the case. These include an affidavit from the manager of the property in question, attorney’s affirmation; an affirmation from the doctor that treated the plaintiff and exhibits labeled A through H. Exhibit A is the summons and complaint issued by the plaintiff. Exhibit B is the verified answer provided by the defendant. Exhibit C is the document from the instant case that was assigned by the King’s County Clerk’s office. Exhibit D is a copy of the release that is signed by the plaintiff and dated May 31st, 2006. Exhibit E is excerpts from an examination given to the plaintiff before the trial. Exhibit F is the copy of the plaintiff’s bill of particulars before litigation. Exhibit H is a copy of the sale deed of the premise.

Located throughout the city of New York, Stephen Bilkis & Associates offer legal representation and advice for whatever type of legal situation that you may find yourself in. For cases where you have been injured while on someone else’s property or you are injured due to someone’s negligence, we can advise you to the best course of action. Call our offices at any time to set up a free consultation.

Case Results

In this particular case for a summary judgment to be granted the defendant must prove prima facie to the fact that the injuries sustained by the plaintiff were not caused by the mold in the apartment.

The defendants use a statement made by Dr. Young to prove prima facie in the case. An NY Personal Injury Lawyer said the doctor testifies to the fact that the plaintiff had been seen in the emergency room for hypertension, uncontrolled diabetes, and obstructive pulmonary disease. These admissions occurred before she moved into the apartment. Additionally, the plaintiff has been tested and shown no signs of an allergy to mold. For this reason, the doctor states that the symptoms that the plaintiff had were not caused by the mold in the apartment.

As a result, the court rules in favor of the defendant and grants a summary motion that dismisses the case.

Contact Information