New York Personal Injury Lawyer Blog 24/7

Published on: December 11, 2025

Court Declines Discovery Delay in Civil Rights Action Alleging Sexual Assault by NYPD Detectives in Doe v. City of New York, 18-cv-670 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 9, 2020)

by Stephen Bilkis

This case grew out of a civil rights lawsuit filed by Anna Doe after an arrest that she said involved serious misconduct by two New York City detectives. While the detectives also faced criminal charges in state court based on the same events, the focus in federal court was the progress of Doe’s civil case and whether the detectives could delay discovery until their criminal matter ended. The district judge examined their request, reviewed the magistrate judge’s order, and considered whether the discovery schedule in the civil rights lawsuit should change.

Background facts

Anna Doe filed a civil action in Kings County Supreme Court against Detectives Richard Hall and Eddie Martins, Sergeant John Espey, Officer Gregory Markov, unnamed officers, and the City of New York. She alleged that Hall and Martins arrested her on September 15, 2017 without legal cause and then raped her in a police van. After the City removed the case to federal court, the City, Espey, and Markov moved to dismiss. The federal court dismissed all claims against Espey and dismissed some claims against the City and Markov. The case continued against Hall and Martins. It also continued on a respondeat superior claim against the City for false arrest and imprisonment, and on a First Amendment retaliation claim against Markov.

Published on: December 11, 2025

Second Circuit determined the record supported an excessive force claim in Brown v. City of New York, 798 F.3d 94 (2d Cir. 2015)

by Stephen Bilkis

Brown v. City of New York, 798 F.3d 94 (2d Cir. 2015), involved a street encounter between a New York City resident and police officers that led to an arrest and the use of force. The case later went to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The court reviewed video evidence of the arrest and the parties’ accounts. The appeal centered on whether the officers’ force during the arrest, including the use of pepper spray, violated the Fourth Amendment. The case showed how courts treated force that took place during a short encounter and how juries had a role in judging that force under the governing standard.

Background facts

The incident took place in lower Manhattan near a Starbucks. Brown went to the store and wanted to use the bathroom. Store staff refused and called the police after reports about her conduct, including banging on the door. Officers responded and approached Brown on the sidewalk near metal scaffolding.

Published on: August 3, 2025

Slip-and-Fall Lawsuit Over Poor Lighting Moves Forward. Pelletteri v. Ferrantino & Co., Inc., 2024 NY Slip Op 50647(U)

by Stephen Bilkis

In Pelletteri v. Ferrantino & Co., Inc., 2024 NY Slip Op 50647(U), the Supreme Court of Kings County reviewed motions for summary judgment in a personal injury case where the plaintiff alleged she fell due to poor lighting and an unmarked single step.

Background Facts

On March 6, 2020, at approximately 6:20 p.m., Joanne G. Pelletteri was making a food delivery at a building located at 8414 4th Avenue in Brooklyn, New York. The property was owned by Ferrantino and Company, Inc.

Published on: June 24, 2025

Injury After Diving from Dock Leads to Premises Liability Claim. Sess v. McGorry, 2019 NY Slip Op 51106(U) (Sup. Ct. Suffolk County 2019)

by Stephen Bilkis

New York property owners are responsible for keeping their premises reasonably safe for people who are invited onto the property. When a guest is hurt while using a feature like a dock or pool, the court looks at whether the owner was negligent in maintaining the property or failed to give warnings. In Sess v. McGorry, the court considered whether homeowners were liable after a guest was hurt diving from their dock into shallow water. The decision looked at the property conditions, the injured guest’s actions, and whether the legal defenses of assumption of risk or sole responsibility applied.

Background Facts
On July 30, 2015, at about 1:30 a.m., Tristan Sess was injured when he dove headfirst into Moriches Bay from the dock of the McGorry family’s summer home in Westhampton Beach, New York. Sess was 19 years old and serving in the Navy. He had visited the McGorry home at least once before to socialize and swim after training with other young men interested in joining Navy special forces.

On the night of the injury, Sess and a group of friends had grilled food, spent time in the hot tub, and repeatedly jumped and dove off the dock into the bay. Sess had consumed a few beers earlier in the day. His girlfriend joined the group that evening. Sess warned her about the shallow water. About ten minutes later, he performed a shallow dive and struck his head on the bay floor.

Published on: June 19, 2025

Product Design Liability and Circular Saws. Voss v. Black & Decker Mfg. Co., 59 N.Y.2d 102 (1983)

by Stephen Bilkis

In New York, product liability law allows an injured person to bring a lawsuit when a product causes harm because it was not reasonably safe. One type of claim involves defective design. In these cases, courts ask whether the product’s design created an unreasonable risk of harm when used as intended. Even when a product functions correctly, it may still be unsafe if a safer design was available at a reasonable cost. This case involved a circular saw and whether it had a design that made it unsafe to use, even though the safety guard worked as intended.

Background Facts

The plaintiff used a circular power saw made by Black & Decker to cut wood for a home project. He stood in his driveway, cutting 2×4 boards on sawhorses. He held the saw in his right hand and braced the wood with his left. The saw had a guard over the blade that retracted when cutting and was supposed to return to a closed position when not in use.

Published on: June 19, 2025

Summary Judgment Granted After Child Injured in Pool Accident. Crampton v. Garnet Health, 2023 NY Slip Op 32278(U) (Sup. Ct. Orange Cnty. 2023)

by Stephen Bilkis

Swimming pool accidents sometimes lead to serious injuries, especially when a pool is not properly maintained, supervised, or labeled with warnings. In New York, legal responsibility for these injuries depends on many factors, including the condition of the pool, the actions of those involved, and the roles of manufacturers, sellers, and property owners. Courts often examine whether the pool had any dangerous defects, whether the injured person was warned about potential hazards, and whether a product or property condition contributed to the accident. This case involved a child who was injured while using an above-ground pool. The court reviewed the evidence to determine whether any party could be held legally responsible for what happened.

Background Facts

In 1982, defendants Paul and Florence Marinaccio purchased a four-foot above-ground swimming pool and a deck kit from defendant Pool Mart, Inc. They installed the pool and deck at their home. Five years later, in 1987, they sold the property—including the installed pool—to defendants Perry and June Hinsken.

Published on: June 17, 2025

Hospital Failed to Show It Didn’t Cause Patient’s Fall. Crampton v. Garnet Health, 2023 NY Slip Op 32278(U) (Sup. Ct. Orange Cnty. 2023)

by Stephen Bilkis

In Crampton v. Garnet Health, the Supreme Court of Orange County considered whether summary judgment was appropriate in a case where a patient fell after being discharged from a hospital. The court reviewed whether the hospital had a duty to protect the patient from falling and whether it had met its legal burden to dismiss the claims against it before trial.

Background Facts

The plaintiff, Susan Crampton, visited Garnet Health on March 6, 2021, due to severe abdominal pain. She was diagnosed with a urinary tract infection and discharged the same day. Hospital staff provided discharge instructions and helped her dress. A nurse then walked her toward the exit. As Crampton neared the automatic doors, she began to fall. A hospital employee, Kevin Silva, caught her and lowered her to the ground.

Published on: June 12, 2025

Court Allows Death to Be Considered Injury Under Nursing Home Law. Hauser v. Fort Hudson Nursing Ctr., Inc., 2021 NY Slip Op 07325

by Stephen Bilkis

In a case involving a nursing home resident’s death, the Appellate Division, Third Department, considered whether Public Health Law § 2801-d permits recovery when the patient dies as a result of a violation of rights. In Hauser v. Fort Hudson Nursing Ctr., Inc., the nursing home argued that the law does not allow for compensation for death under this statute. The court rejected that view and allowed the case to proceed, confirming that the statute includes death as a redressable injury.

Background Facts

Bert Dwain Butler Sr. was a resident at Fort Hudson Nursing Center, which is operated by Fort Hudson Health System, Inc. After his death, the administrator of his estate, Jennifer Hauser, brought a lawsuit against the nursing home. The complaint included several claims: violations of Public Health Law §§ 2801-d and 2803-c, negligence, gross negligence, conscious pain and suffering, and wrongful death.

Published on: June 10, 2025

Worker’s Slip and Fall in School Leads to Dismissal of Injury Lawsuit. Aljahmi v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Educ., 2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 50227

by Stephen Bilkis

A school maintenance worker who slipped while cleaning a classroom floor sued the New York City Department of Education (DOE) for personal injuries. He argued that the DOE failed to provide a safe work environment. The court reviewed the facts and dismissed the case, holding that the accident was related to the worker’s routine duties and not caused by any violation of law or safety rule by the DOE. This case shows how courts treat injury claims that arise during routine cleaning tasks.

Background Facts

Ahmed Aljahmi worked as a part-time cleaner at William E. Grady Career and Technical Education High School in Brooklyn. He was employed by a contractor hired by the New York City Department of Education. His job included cleaning classrooms and hallways.

Published on: June 5, 2025

Building Owner May Be Held Responsible for Wet Sidewalk Slip. Backiel v. Citibank, N.A., 299 A.D.2d 504 (2d Dep’t 2002)

by Stephen Bilkis

When a property owner hires a contractor to maintain its building, it may assume that the contractor, not the owner, will be responsible for any problems caused by the work. However, in some cases, courts have ruled that owners may still be held legally responsible. One example is Backiel v. Citibank, N.A., where an office cleaner slipped on a wet walkway outside an office building owned by Citibank. Although the area was being cleaned by a contractor, the court decided that Citibank could not avoid responsibility by claiming the work had been delegated.

Background Facts

The plaintiff, Wanda Backiel, worked as an office cleaner. She was employed by Cushman & Wakefield, a company hired by Citibank to maintain its office building located at 399 Park Avenue in New York City. On September 24, 1997, Backiel completed an overnight shift and exited the building early in the morning. As she walked across the plaza in front of the lobby, she slipped and fell on a wet surface.