September 28, 2009

Gunshot Victim

In Kelly v. Norgate Business Associates, a case that originated in the Bronx Supreme Court and went up on appeal, a gunshot victim was able to proceed to a jury trial in his action to recover damages against the building owner and its security company after he was shot in an apartment building lobby. The victim was visiting a friend in the building. When he entered he found the locks broken and the security guard never asked him to sign in. There was a group of 10 to 12 men in the lobby near the guard. When the victim left the the building, a fight broke out and the victim was shot, while the guard did nothing but call police only after shots were fired. The Appellate Division ruled that the victim may recover as a third-party intended beneficiary of the security contract between the building owner and the security company where there was evidence that security officers were to safeguard lives and not just property. It also noted the building owner may also be found liable as a jury may find the assailant was an intruder who entered and exited the building through the broken doors. www.foleygriffin.com

August 30, 2009

Accident reconstruction expert

It is not uncommon for our attorneys to retain the services of an accident reconstruction expert in car accident personal injury cases. Recently were retained by the family of a woman seriously injured in a car crash. Unfortunately the client had no recollection of the accident. We immediately realized that this posed a significant obstacle in proving negligence on the part of other driver. We contacted and retained an expert who was able to determine that the other driver was speeding and thus our client had a valid case. We were only able to succeed on this matter because we were retained immediately after the accident and were therefore able to conduct a thorough and complete investigation.

August 3, 2009

Assault victims

Recently we have been retained by clients who have been the victims of assaults. Ordinarily these are difficult cases to prosecute. There are two main issues in an assault case, liability (who was at fault) and damages. If the client was truly victimized by an attacker, proving the defendant's liability may not be too difficult. However, although the client may have suffered serious injuries in the assault, the question remains as to how the defendant will be able to pay any judgment obtained against him. The problem with these cases usually centers around the defendant's lack of money to pay a judgment against him. After looking into the defendant's finances, we will be in a better position to decide if it is worth the effort to pursue a claim against him.

June 26, 2009

Government claims-Statutes of Limitations

In personal injury law there are "statutes of limitation" that govern the time frame when a claim must be started. An ordinary negligence claim usually must be commenced within three years of the accident. Of course there are exceptions to the three year time limit. One very import exception involves claims against the government. If a person is injured due to the negligence of a government worker/agency, etc., the government is entitled to receive a "Notice of Claim" within 90 days of the occurrence. This provides the government with the added benefit of being able to quickly investigate the validity of a claim. Therefore it is very important to seek legal advise immediately after a claim arises. This will allow the attorney to investigate whether or not the government was in any way responsible for the accident and thus entitled to a "Notice of Claim."

May 15, 2009

Car Accident-Police Reckless Conduct


On occasion, a police or emergency vehicle is involved in a car accident while responding to a police, fire or medical crisis. These cases are different than the ordinary car crash involving non-police vehicles. In particular, the standard of proof necessary to prove a case against a police officer is greater than that of an ordinary motorist. Police are given what is known as a "qualified privilege" meaning they can only be sued if their conduct rises to the level of "reckless disregard" of the safety of others. This is harder to prove than the standard of negligence required in an ordinary car accident. Recently a police officer was found responsible for an accident when it was determined that his conduct in stopping short on the L.I.E. contributed to the happening of an accident. The case, known as Tutrani v. County of Suffolk, was recently decided in the Appellate Division, Second Department of our State.

March 25, 2009

Dram Shop cases

In New York State there exists a social host law. Some people may call this a "dram shop" case. Under certain circumstances it is possible to bring a claim against a host (bar, restaurant, homeowner) if the host serves alcohol to someone visibly intoxicated and that intoxicated person injures a third party. These cases are very fact specific and a thorough investigation is required at the outset.

March 12, 2009

Worker's Compensation

The general rule in New York State is that an employee cannot sue his/her employer for injuries sustained on the job. The reason for this is that our state legislature has set up a mechanism for an injured worker to obtain compensation for injuries under the Worker's Compensation law. Thus, since the injured worker can recover under the Comp law, he/she is barred from suing the employer directly. However, any case involving an injured worker should be closely examined by an attorney to determine if a "third party" non-employer may be responsible for the worker's injuries. Under those circumstances it is entirely possible to bring a lawsuit against the non-employer for their negligence in causing the worker's injuries. This includes construction accidents, work site accidents, and as well as motor vehicle accidents.

February 27, 2009

Injured illegal immigrant can sue

Recently a local court upheld the right of an illegal immigrant to sue following a construction accident. In the Manhattan case, a Judge ruled that the plaintiff's case should not be dismissed even though the plaintiff was an illegal immigrant. The Court found that the plaintiff's illegal status was "irrelevant." The Court's ruling was clearly a victory for immigrant's rights. The Court found that the defendant employer of illegal immigrants cannot receive the benefits of paying illegal immigrants lower wages and then use the immigrant's illegal status against them when faced with a lawsuit. The Judge found that it was wrong for the firms to hold deportation over the heads of immigrant workers injured on the job