New York Personal Injury Lawyer Blog 24/7

Published on: January 1, 2024

In a case alleging abuse of inmate rights, the court had to determine whether the plaintiff filed his claim too late. Devane v. Doe, 20-CV-9649 (NSR) (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 6, 2023)

by Stephen Bilkis

Even when people are incarcerated, they retain rights. Under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, prisoners in New York, as in other states, are entitled to certain rights aimed at protecting them from cruel and unusual punishment and ensuring due process of law.

The Eighth Amendment prohibits the imposition of cruel and unusual punishment, which encompasses actions by prison officials or conditions within correctional facilities that result in unnecessary suffering or harm to inmates. This includes physical abuse, excessive use of force, deliberate indifference to serious medical needs, and unsafe or unsanitary living conditions. Prisoners have the right to be free from conditions that pose a substantial risk of serious harm to their health or safety.

The Fourteenth Amendment extends additional protections to prisoners by guaranteeing due process of law. This means that inmates have the right to fair and impartial treatment in disciplinary proceedings, access to adequate medical care, protection from retaliation for exercising their constitutional rights, and the opportunity to challenge their confinement through legal procedures.

Published on: December 13, 2023

Inmate failed to prove excessive force by corrections officers. Bookman v. State, # 2016-015-617 (N.Y. Ct. Cl. Oct. 17, 2016)

by Stephen Bilkis

Inmates are protected from the use of excessive force by various laws and regulations at both the federal and state levels. One significant federal statute is the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment, including the use of excessive force by correctional officers. This amendment serves as a fundamental safeguard for inmates’ rights and establishes a baseline standard for the treatment of prisoners.

Additionally, many states have enacted laws and regulations specifically addressing the use of force in correctional facilities. For example, in New York, the Correction Law and the New York Codes, Rules, and Regulations (NYCRR) provide guidelines for the use of force by correctional officers. These laws outline the circumstances under which force may be justified, such as self-defense or maintaining order, and emphasize the importance of using only the minimum amount of force necessary to achieve a legitimate objective.

Furthermore, court decisions, such as those interpreting the Eighth Amendment, help to clarify the legal standards surrounding the use of force in prisons and ensure that inmates are afforded adequate protection against abuse. Bookman v. State is one of those cases.

Published on: December 4, 2023

Court determined that inmate was not subjected to inhumane conditions at the Anna M. Kross Center Correctional Facility, Rodriguez v. the City of N.Y., 87 A.D.3d 867 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)

by Stephen Bilkis

In the case of Albert Rodriguez v. The City of New York et al., the plaintiff alleged that he slipped and fell on a wet floor at the Anna M. Kross Center correctional facility on Rikers Island, where he was incarcerated. He claimed that the dangerous condition was caused by the defendants’ failure to repair leaks in the facility and that they were deliberately indifferent to the conditions that posed a risk to his safety. The complaint also asserted that defendants failed to provide immediate medical attention after the accident, violating Rodriguez’s civil rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.

Background Facts

Albert Rodriguez was incarcerated on Rikers Island when he slipped and fell on a wet floor. The conditions leading to his fall were allegedly caused by leaks in the facility’s roof, ceiling, and pipes, which had not been repaired by the defendants. Despite being aware of these leaks, Rodriguez claimed that Valerie Oliver, the Warden of the Center, failed to address them adequately. Rodriguez asserted that the defendants’ indifference to these hazardous conditions resulted in his accident.

Published on: December 4, 2023

Whether the court erred in denying the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on negligence and the emergency operation defense under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104. Torres-Cummings v. Niagara Falls Police Dep’t, 193 A.D.3d 1372 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)

by Stephen Bilkis

This case involves a collision between a plaintiff’s vehicle and a police vehicle operated by Officer Kelly Rougeux of the Niagara Falls Police Department. The plaintiff sought damages for injuries sustained in the accident, alleging negligence on the part of Officer Rougeux.

Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104 grants certain privileges to drivers of authorized emergency vehicles engaged in emergency operations. These privileges include the ability to exceed speed limits, disregard traffic signals, and proceed through red lights, provided it does not endanger life or property. However, these privileges are not absolute. The law mandates that even in emergency operations, drivers must operate their vehicles with “due regard for the safety of all persons.” If an emergency vehicle’s operation involves reckless disregard for others’ safety, the driver can be held liable for resulting damages.

In the context of a negligence case, if a driver is engaged in exempt conduct under § 1104(b) during emergency operations, the reckless disregard standard applies. This standard demands more than ordinary negligence and holds the driver accountable for injuries caused by the reckless exercise of privileges. On the other hand, if the injury results from conduct not covered by the specified privileges, ordinary negligence principles come into play. The determination of which standard applies can significantly impact the outcome of a case and the amount of damages awarded. Understanding these distinctions is essential for evaluating the conduct of emergency vehicle drivers and establishing liability in personal injury claims arising from accidents involving such vehicles.

Published on: September 18, 2023

Deliberate indifference to safety must be shown for a finding of a violation of the 8th Amendment. Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294 (1991)

by Stephen Bilkis

The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution holds a critical role in safeguarding the rights of inmates, ensuring they are protected from cruel and unusual punishment. Despite the misperception that prisoners may not possess rights, they do indeed retain fundamental human rights, including the right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. The Eighth Amendment underscores a foundational principle of justice, asserting that punishments should align proportionately with the offense committed, avoiding any form of unnecessary suffering or humiliation. For instance, subjecting an inmate to solitary confinement for a minor violation, such as a verbal disagreement, constitutes a clear case of cruel and unusual punishment, highlighting the necessity to respect fundamental human rights within the criminal justice system.

Wilson v. Seiter, a landmark Supreme Court case in 1991, addressed the Eighth Amendment’s application to prison conditions. The case questioned whether inadequate prison conditions that do not involve direct physical abuse could still violate the prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. This legal analysis was crucial in defining the threshold for Eighth Amendment violations concerning prison environments. The court’s decision in Wilson v. Seiter set an essential precedent impacting the rights of prisoners and the responsibilities of correctional facilities.

Factual Background

Published on: September 11, 2023

U.S. Supreme Court examined the question of excessive force used by corrections officers. Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1 (1992)

by Stephen Bilkis

The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution safeguards individuals from cruel and unusual punishment. This vital clause aims to prevent excessive, barbaric, or degrading treatment in criminal justice systems. It establishes a fundamental principle of justice, emphasizing that punishments should be proportionate to the offense and should not involve unnecessary suffering or humiliation. For instance, sentencing a minor offense with a punishment like life imprisonment without parole could be deemed an example of cruel and unusual punishment, given its disproportionate severity.

Hudson v. McMillian, a pivotal case in U.S. constitutional law, underscored the legal contours surrounding the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. This case, decided by the Supreme Court in 1992, examined the excessive use of force against an inmate by prison officials, sparking significant debates about the protection of prisoners’ rights. The case questioned the permissible limits of force used by correctional officers, shedding light on the delicate balance between maintaining institutional security and upholding the rights and dignity of incarcerated individuals.

Factual Background

Published on: September 4, 2023

On appeal, the court determined that the damage award was excessive based on the plaintiff’s injuries. Sutherland v Don Dee Trucking Corp. 2008 NY Slip Op 52576(U) [22 Misc 3d 1101(A)]

by Stephen Bilkis

A rear-end accident, often called a rear-end collision, occurs when one vehicle crashes into the back of another vehicle. It’s one of the most common types of car accidents. Typically, the trailing vehicle is at fault for failing to maintain a safe following distance or failing to stop in time to avoid a collision. These accidents can result in various injuries, with whiplash being a frequent outcome due to the rapid forward and backward movement of the occupants’ heads. Rear-end accidents can vary in severity, from minor fender benders to more serious collisions, depending on the speed and force of impact.

In the case of Sutherland v Don Dee Trucking Corp., liability was not contested. The issue was the amount of damages. The Supreme Court, Kings County was asked to determine if the amount of damages the jury awarded was plaintiff was reasonable given the defendant’s injuries.

Factual Background

Published on: August 30, 2023

Prison officials can be held liable for injuries to an inmate if they show deliberate indifference. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994)

by Stephen Bilkis

In the context of the 8^th Amendment and incarcerated individuals, deliberate indifference is a legal concept that refers to a conscious and reckless disregard for an inmate’s safety or well-being. It involves a clear awareness of a substantial risk to an inmate’s rights, health, or safety, and a failure to take reasonable measures to mitigate that risk. It implies a purposeful or knowing neglect of the risk, showing a callous and uncaring attitude towards the potential harm, demonstrating a severe departure from acceptable professional judgment and prison standards. Deliberate indifference constitutes a violation of an inmate’s constitutional rights under the Eighth Amendment.

Farmer v. Brennan, a seminal case in 1994, dealt with the Eighth Amendment’s applicability to deliberate indifference in the context of prison conditions. The case was significant in determining whether prison officials, by exhibiting deliberate indifference, could be held accountable for the harm inflicted on an inmate by fellow prisoners.

Factual Background

Published on: August 16, 2023

Court considered the presumption of negligence in rear-end vehicle accident. Passos v. Mta Bus Co., 13 N.Y.S.3d 4 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)

by Stephen Bilkis

This case involves a multi-vehicle collision on Second Avenue, between 78th and 79th Streets, where plaintiffs sought summary judgment against the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) and its bus driver, defendant Victor Moses. The collision included nonparty DiPaoli, plaintiff Passos, and an MTA bus. Plaintiffs claimed that Moses failed to maintain a safe distance, leading to the rear-end collision.

Cars must drive at a safe distance behind another car for safety reasons. Maintaining a safe following distance allows drivers to react appropriately to sudden stops or changes in traffic conditions. It provides a buffer that reduces the risk of collisions, giving drivers more time to brake or maneuver if the vehicle in front slows down or comes to a halt unexpectedly. This fundamental road safety practice is designed to prevent rear-end accidents and is a legal requirement outlined in traffic laws. Adhering to proper following distances enhances overall road safety and reduces the likelihood of accidents caused by tailgating or insufficient braking time.

In New York, a rear-end collision establishes a prima facie case of negligence against the operator of the following vehicle. This presumption arises from Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1129(a). However, it is not conclusive, and the rear-ending driver can rebut it by providing a non-negligent explanation for the accident. The law recognizes that circumstances, such as sudden stops or other contributing factors, may impact the determination of liability. This nuanced approach allows for a comprehensive assessment of each case, considering all relevant factors before assigning fault in rear-end accidents.

Published on: August 14, 2023

Liability in a chain reaction accident. Rodriguez v. The City of New York, 2020 N.Y. Slip Op. 35496 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2020)

by Stephen Bilkis

A chain reaction car accident involves a series of collisions between multiple vehicles, typically initiated by an initial impact. In such incidents, the force of the first collision sets off a sequence of subsequent crashes as vehicles in close proximity react to the unfolding chaos. Determining liability in chain reaction accidents can be intricate, often requiring an examination of the specific circumstances surrounding each collision and the establishment of a clear sequence of events. These accidents highlight the importance of maintaining safe distances and attentive driving to mitigate the risk of contributing to or becoming a victim of such collisions.

Rodriguez v. The City of New York, 2020 N.Y. Slip Op. 35496 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2020) involves a motion by defendants CDA Legacy and Luistro Mauricio to vacate prior court orders and deny plaintiffs’ and co-defendants’ motions for summary judgment. The focus is on chain-reaction collisions and the allocation of liability in such incidents.

Background Facts