New York Personal Injury Lawyer Blog 24/7

Published on: May 3, 2025

New York Court Limits Animal Injury Claims to Vicious Propensity Rule. Bard v. Jahnke, 6 N.Y.3d 592 (2006)

by Stephen Bilkis

In Bard v. Jahnke, the New York Court of Appeals addressed whether a property owner could be held liable for injuries caused by a domestic animal—specifically, a dairy bull—under a common-law negligence theory. The court considered whether an owner could be held responsible for failing to warn or restrain an animal that, while not previously aggressive, belonged to a class known to be dangerous.

Background Facts

On September 27, 2001, Larry Bard, a self-employed carpenter, visited Hemlock Valley Farms, a dairy farm in Otsego County. He had been invited by another carpenter, John Timer, to assist with repairs to cow mattresses in the barn’s “low cow district.” Timer had previously worked on various farm tasks and was asked to do this job by one of the farm owners’ sons. Neither Timer nor Bard saw any animals when they walked through the barn that morning.

Published on: April 26, 2025

When a Broken Lock Leads to Tragedy. Scurry v New York City Housing Authority, 2023 NY Slip Op 02752

by Stephen Bilkis

In Scurry v New York City Housing Authority, the New York Court of Appeals considered whether the Housing Authority could avoid liability where intruders gained access to buildings through doors with broken locks and committed violent attacks. The key question was whether the targeted nature of the attacks severed the link between NYCHA’s failure to maintain secure entryways and the resulting injuries.

Background Facts

The Court of Appeals decided two related cases. Both involved murders committed by intruders who entered public housing complexes where exterior doors allegedly lacked working locks.

Published on: April 20, 2025

When Can a Product Be Defective Under Warranty But Not Strict Liability? Denny v. Ford Motor Co., 87 N.Y.2d 248 (1995)

by Stephen Bilkis

In product liability law, plaintiffs often sue under both strict products liability and breach of implied warranty. In Denny v. Ford Motor Co., 87 N.Y.2d 248 (1995), the New York Court of Appeals addressed whether a manufacturer could be held liable under one theory but not the other. The court clarified that the two causes of action are distinct and can lead to different outcomes based on the facts presented. The decision offered guidance for product liability lawsuits in New York.

Background Facts

In 1986, Nancy Denny was injured when her Ford Bronco II rolled over while she was trying to avoid hitting a deer. Denny and her husband filed a lawsuit against Ford Motor Company. They claimed that the vehicle’s design made it more likely to roll over, and that Ford breached the implied warranty of merchantability and was strictly liable for the design defect.

Published on: April 16, 2025

Summary Judgment Granted to City After Park Injury Involving Metal Panel. K.B. v. City of Mount Vernon, 2024 NY Slip Op 04299 (App. Div. 2d Dep’t Aug. 28, 2024)

by Stephen Bilkis

In K.B. v. City of Mount Vernon, 2024 NY Slip Op 04299, the Appellate Division, Second Department addressed whether the City of Mount Vernon could be held liable for injuries allegedly caused by a defect in a public park. The infant plaintiff was injured when a hinged metal panel covering a water meter pit gave way.

Background Facts

The incident occurred in a public park owned by the City of Mount Vernon. The infant plaintiff was walking in the park when one of two hinged metal panels covering a water meter pit gave way beneath her. As a result, she allegedly suffered personal injuries.

Published on: April 11, 2025

Injury Claims Denied in Baler Machine Case Due to Modification. Cacciola v. Selco Balers, Inc., 127 F. Supp. 2d 175 (E.D.N.Y. 2001)

by Stephen Bilkis

In product liability cases, courts often examine how a product was used at the time of the accident and whether it had been changed from its original condition. In the case of Cacciola v. Selco Balers, Inc., the court had to decide whether a manufacturer could be held responsible for injuries caused by a machine that had been altered after it was sold. The court also reviewed whether the manufacturer had failed to provide proper warnings. This blog reviews how the court handled the claims, the evidence presented, and what the decision means for similar product liability claims in New York.

Background Facts

Frank Cacciola was injured on December 3, 1996, while using a baler machine at his workplace, a Pepsi Cola plant in Brooklyn, New York. The baler was used to compress cardboard boxes and had a safety feature known as an interlock switch. This switch prevented the machine from operating if the safety gate was open. On the day of the incident, the interlock switch had been disabled with wire, allowing the machine to run even when the safety gate was open.

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.