New York Personal Injury Lawyer Blog 24/7

Published on: April 3, 2025

Was General Motors Liable for the Design of the 1973 Chevrolet Malibu? Cover v. Cohen, 61 N.Y.2d 261 (1984)

by Stephen Bilkis

In Cover v. Cohen, the New York Court of Appeals reviewed whether a car manufactured by General Motors was defective under strict products liability. The case also considered whether the evidence presented at trial was proper and whether the judgment against both General Motors and the car dealer, Kinney Motors, should stand. The court’s decision clarified how post-manufacture safety standards and later modifications may be treated in a design defect claim.

Background Facts

In June 1974, Irving Cohen was operating a 1973 Chevrolet Malibu. He had purchased the vehicle from Kinney Motors in October 1972. According to Cohen, while attempting to parallel park on a Brooklyn street, he placed the car in reverse when it suddenly accelerated backward. He claimed the car would not stop despite having his foot on the brake. The car traveled 70 feet in reverse, mounted a curb, and struck a building.

Published on: March 24, 2025

State Held Liable for Wrongful Death During Attica Prison Riot. Jones v. State of New York, 33 N.Y.2d 275 (1973)

by Stephen Bilkis

In Jones v. State of New York, 33 N.Y.2d 275 (1973), the New York Court of Appeals considered whether the State could be held liable for the wrongful death of a State employee killed during the retaking of Attica Correctional Facility following a prison uprising. The case raised questions about the limits of sovereign immunity and whether the State’s conduct during an official action could give rise to liability under a theory of intentional tort.

Background Facts

Herbert W. Jones, Jr. worked for the New York State Department of Correctional Services as an accounts clerk at the Attica State Correctional Facility. His job was clerical, and he had no responsibilities involving the guarding or control of inmates. On September 9, 1971, an uprising broke out at Attica. During the disturbance, Jones was taken hostage along with other staff members.

Published on: March 14, 2025

Injury Verdict Reduced After Court Review of Pain and Suffering Awards. Young v. Tops Markets, Inc., 283 A.D.2d 923 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

by Stephen Bilkis

In a personal injury case arising from a workplace fall, the court addressed whether a jury’s award for pain and suffering was excessive. The plaintiff, Thomas J. Young, sustained serious injuries and sued under Labor Law § 240(1).

Background Facts

Thomas J. Young fell 18 feet while working in April 1994. He brought a lawsuit against the property owner under New York Labor Law § 240(1), which protects construction workers injured due to inadequate safety devices. In June 1998, the court granted partial summary judgment in Young’s favor on the issue of liability.

Published on: March 7, 2025

Was General Motors Liable for the Design of the 1973 Chevrolet Malibu? Cover v. Cohen, 61 N.Y.2d 261 (1984)

by Stephen Bilkis

In Cover v. Cohen, the New York Court of Appeals reviewed whether a car manufactured by General Motors was defective under strict products liability. The case also considered whether the evidence presented at trial was proper and whether the judgment against both General Motors and the car dealer, Kinney Motors, should stand. The court’s decision clarified how post-manufacture safety standards and later modifications may be treated in a design defect claim.

Background Facts

In June 1974, Irving Cohen was operating a 1973 Chevrolet Malibu. He had purchased the vehicle from Kinney Motors in October 1972. According to Cohen, while attempting to parallel park on a Brooklyn street, he placed the car in reverse when it suddenly accelerated backward. He claimed the car would not stop despite having his foot on the brake. The car traveled 70 feet in reverse, mounted a curb, and struck a building.

Published on: February 28, 2025

Worker Injured After Fall from Ladder Recovered Under Labor Law § 240(1). Dibrino v. Rockefeller Center North, Inc., 2024 NY Slip Op 03558 (1st Dept.)

by Stephen Bilkis

The Appellate Division, First Department, decided the case of Dibrino v. Rockefeller Center North, Inc. on July 2, 2024. The case involved a construction worker who fell from a ladder on a commercial job site in Manhattan. The key question was whether the defendants violated New York Labor Law § 240(1), which requires owners and contractors to provide safety devices that protect workers from elevation-related risks.

Background Facts

Plaintiff Dominick Dibrino worked for a subcontractor named Jacobson & Company, which handled drywall and ceiling installation. The project took place on the fifth floor of a commercial property located at 1271 Avenue of the Americas. Rockefeller Center North, Inc. owned the property, and JRM Construction Management LLC served as the general contractor. JRM hired DAL Electrical Corporation as the electrical subcontractor.

Published on: February 24, 2025

Summary Judgment Granted for Plaintiff After Construction Site Fatality. Kosta v. WDF, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 51306(U) (Sup. Ct. Kings County 2018)

by Stephen Bilkis

In Kosta v. WDF, Inc., the Supreme Court of Kings County considered liability for a construction site fatality at the Owl’s Head Water Treatment Plant in Brooklyn. The plaintiff, acting as administrator of the estates of Gennaro and Donna Montello, sought damages for injuries and wrongful death caused by the collapse of a conveyor system. The court analyzed claims under Labor Law § 200, common law negligence, and other related causes of action.

Background Facts
The accident occurred during a construction project at the Owl’s Head Water Treatment Plant, owned by the City of New York. WDF, Inc. was the general contractor and was required to install temporary conveyors to move waste during construction. The conveyors, purchased from Serpentix Conveyor Corporation, were designed to be bolted to the floor. At the request of a City supervisor, the conveyors were modified by adding wheels, making them mobile.

WDF contacted J. Blanco Associates, Inc. to fabricate and provide caster wheels. The modified conveyors were installed in July 2008. On August 27, 2008, Serpentix notified WDF that the warranty on the conveyors was void due to the modifications and warned that the conveyors needed additional supports. WDF did not install the supports.

Published on: February 19, 2025

Ladder Fall Caused by Worker’s Own Actions Did Not Support Labor Law § 240(1) Claim Blake v. Neighborhood Housing Services, N.Y. City, 1 N.Y.3d 280 (2003)

by Stephen Bilkis

In Blake v. Neighborhood Housing Services, N.Y. City, the New York Court of Appeals addressed whether a worker injured while using a ladder could recover under Labor Law § 240(1) when the ladder provided proper protection and the worker’s own actions were the only cause of the fall. This case clarified the limits of liability under the statute and reaffirmed that not every fall from a ladder results in an automatic finding of liability. The court focused on whether the defendant violated the statute and whether that violation caused the injury.

Background Facts

Rupert Blake owned a contracting company and was hired to perform renovation work at a two-family home in the Bronx. The homeowner had received financing from Neighborhood Housing Services of New York City (NHS), a nonprofit lender. NHS provided a work estimate and a list of possible contractors. The homeowner selected Blake, and NHS had no further involvement in directing the work.

Published on: February 13, 2025

Court Dismissed Case After Plaintiff Gave Wrong Date in Notice of Claim Garland v City of New York, 2025 NY Slip Op 01991

by Stephen Bilkis

In Garland v City of New York, 2025 NY Slip Op 01991, the Appellate Division, Second Department, reviewed whether a lawsuit could go forward when the plaintiff gave the wrong date of the alleged injury in the required notice of claim. The case involved a person who said she was hurt while trying to get on a city bus.

Background Facts

Theresa Garland claimed that she was injured while boarding a bus. She said the fall happened on June 13, 2015. However, when she filed her notice of claim—a document that must be submitted before suing a city agency—she wrote that the injury occurred on June 9, 2015.

Published on: February 3, 2025

Court Ordered MTA Bus Company to Provide GPS Data in Injury Case Smith-Percival v MTA Bus Co., 2024 NY Slip Op 06000

by Stephen Bilkis

The case of Smith-Percival v MTA Bus Co., 2024 NY Slip Op 06000, focused on whether certain discovery requests should be enforced in a personal injury lawsuit. While the claim centered on an injury suffered by a passenger, the legal issue before the Appellate Division, Second Department, was about the production of GPS and route records. These documents could provide facts needed to prepare for trial and determine whether the defendants contributed to the plaintiff’s injuries. The court’s ruling addressed what information must be shared and how far a defendant must go to comply with discovery in a personal injury case involving public transportation.

Background Facts

On December 22, 2017, Merlene Smith-Percival was riding on a bus operated by the MTA Bus Company when the bus came into contact with a vehicle belonging to the New York City Police Department. Smith-Percival claimed that she was injured during the incident.

Published on: January 22, 2025

False arrest claim based on complaint by estranged spouse. Masciello v. Inc. Vill. of Lloyd Harbor, 140 A.D.3d 834 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)

by Stephen Bilkis

In an action to recover damages for false arrest and malicious prosecution, the plaintiff in Masciello v. Inc. Vill. of Lloyd Harbor, 140 A.D.3d 834 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016) challenged an order from the New York Supreme Court that granted summary judgment to the defendants—the Incorporated Village of Lloyd Harbor, its police department, and two officers—dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint.

In New York, false arrest and malicious prosecution are legal claims that individuals can bring against law enforcement or other parties. False arrest occurs when someone is detained without legal justification. To prove false arrest, the plaintiff must show that they were intentionally confined without consent and that the confinement was not otherwise privileged. The key defense against a false arrest claim is the existence of probable cause, which justifies the arrest.

Malicious prosecution involves pursuing a legal action against someone without probable cause and with malice. For a malicious prosecution claim, the plaintiff must establish four elements: the initiation of a criminal proceeding by the defendant, the proceeding terminated in favor of the plaintiff, the absence of probable cause for the proceeding, and actual malice. Probable cause serves as a complete defense to both false arrest and malicious prosecution claims.