December 23, 2010

Slip and Fall-black ice

The Court of Appeals has recognized a possible exception to the prior written notice statute required for bring a personal injury action against the government. In San Marco v. Village/Town of Mount Kisco , the Court found that there was an issue as to whether village created black ice condition upon which plaintiff slipped and fell precluded summary judgment.
The Court of Appeals has held that the "immediacy" test for determining whether the "affirmative creation" exception to the prior written notice statute excused written notification in cases involving hazards caused by a pothole or manhole cover did not extend to cases involving hazards related to negligent snow removal. As such, a village could be liable for a negligent ice condition without receiving prior written notice, if it created the defect or hazard through an affirmative act of negligence. However, a fact issue as to whether the village created the black ice condition upon which the plaintiff slipped and fell precluded summary judgment in the plaintiff's personal injury action against the village.

December 17, 2010

Hit and run drivers

Recently, the Suffolk County Police Fifth Squad detectives investigated a hit-and-run crash that seriously injured a pedestrian. Police responded to a 911 call from a passing motorist reporting that a pedestrian was lying on the ground on North Ocean Avenue near Vehslage Street in Patchogue on December 11 at 6:07 p.m. When police arrived, they determined that a man had been struck by an unidentified vehicle that fled in an unknown direction. The injured man was transported to Brookhaven Memorial Hospital Medical Center in East Patchogue and was listed in critical condition.

Slip and Fall on Ice-great decision

New York State's highest court has recently decided a case that will be very favorable to plaintiff's injured after slipping on "black ice." In the case, San Marco v. Village/Town of Mount Kisco, a woman who was seriously injured when she slipped on "black ice" in a municipal parking lot was not required to show the municipality had received prior written notice of the hazard for her suit against it to proceed. The lack of prior written notice is often the reason for dismissal of cases such as Ms. San Marco's.
In her case, Ms. San Marco claimed the village created the hazardous condition when its piled up snow that then melted and re-froze over several days. In denying the village's motion for summary judgment, the Court's majority said the municipality's alleged negligence distinguished the case from other prior-notification issues.
"A jury must decide whether San Marco fell on ice created by the Village's snow clearance operation," Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman wrote for the majority. "And relatedly, there are factual issues concerning whether the Village exercised its duty of care to maintain the parking lot in a reasonably safe condition by plowing snow high alongside active parking spaces, and in failing to salt or sand the lot on weekends, despite the fact that it remained open seven days a week."

December 8, 2010

Gap in treatment

When deciding if a plaintiff's personal injury claim meets the threshold required by law, the Courts will often look to see if the person treated continuously. Unexplained gaps in treatment have led to the dismissal of many claims. Recently, the Court addressed the issue of "gap in treatment" in Abdelaziz v Fazel, 2010 NY Slip Op 08877. There the Court held that the plaintiff's affidavit explained the gap in his treatment. In the statement, the plaintiff explained that he stopped treatment after his no-fault benefits were terminated and he could not afford to personally pay for further treatment (see Black v Robinson, 305 AD2d 438, 439-440; see also Domanas v Delgado Travel Agency, Inc., 56 AD3d 717, 718; Jules v Barbecho, 55 AD3d 548, 549).

December 4, 2010

Assumption of the risk

It is often to prove negligence in cases where a plaintiff engages in potential dangerous activity such as sporting events, horseback riding, sky-diving and similar events. The Courts have consistently held that most times a plaintiff assumes the risk that he/she may be injured by engaging in such activity. This issue was recently addressed by the appellate courts in Stanislav v. Papp. There the Court held that the defendant did not owe plaintiff a duty to ensure that the horseback riding experience on their date was safe. The plaintiff had experience riding horses and was aware that the risks of falling from a horse or a horse acting in an unintended manner were inherent in the sport.

November 30, 2010

Police Shooting, Johnson v. City of New York

The Court of Appeals recently held that police officers and city were immune from liability for accidental shooting of bystanders during shootout with armed robbery suspect.The Court held that the fact that police officers who were in pursuit of an armed robbery suspect who had opened fire on them on a public street did not observe two bystanders hiding on the ground behind a sport utility vehicle at the time they exercised their judgment in returning fire did not raise an issue as to whether the officers unnecessarily endangered innocent persons. As such, the officers and the city were immune from liability for the accidental shooting of the bystanders during the exchange of gunfire between the officers and the robbery suspect. The Court reasoned as such given that the officers had a clear view of the suspect when they returned fire, that the officers did not see any bystanders in the area while firing on the suspect, and that the bystanders were not in the line of fire during the shootout.

November 21, 2010

Day Care Workers sentenced

Judge James McCormack sentenced the owner of Carousel Day School to probation for his role in the death of a toddler at his school. In March 2009, the toddler was given a raw carrot by a Carousel staff member. The child began to choke and efforts to revive her were unsuccessful. Carousel, it's owner, Gene Formica, and it's manager, Kathy Cordaro, were all charged with their involvement with the child's death. The criminal case has now concluded. The attorneys at Foley Griffin Jacobson & Faria, are handling a civil claim arising out of this tragedy.

October 26, 2010

Serious injury threshold

One of the most common issues that we confront as personal injury attorneys is the question as to whether our client's injuries meet the minimum threshold required to bring a successful lawsuit in New York State. (Insurance Law § 5102(d)). The Courts often grapple with the question as to what is a serious physical injury. It is commonplace for defendants to move to dismiss plaintiff's claims based upon the theory that the plaintiff's injuries are inadequate as a matter of law. However, the Courts will look to the medical report of the defendant's doctor before deciding whether or not the defendant has met his/her burden establishing the lack of serious injury. Recently the Second Department held that based upon the defendant's doctor's report, the motion to dismiss should have been denied by the trial court. In this case, Britt v Bustamante, the defendants relied, inter alia, on the affirmed medical report of an orthopedist who examined the plaintiff more than three years after the accident, and noted significant range-of-motion limitations in the plaintiff's cervical spine. In view of the orthopedist's findings, the defendants failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law

October 19, 2010

Car accident-Sunrise Highway

Suffolk County police announced that one person has been airlifted to Stony Brook University Medical Center following a three-car on October 19, 2010 near the West Babylon-North Lindenhurst border. The crash occurred at 7:43 a.m. and closed down westbound Sunrise Highway at Exit 37, Route 109, police said.

October 7, 2010

Day care liability

Nassau County District Attorney Kathleen Rice announced that the owner, the former assistant director, and corporation that operates the Hicksville child daycare facility, Carousel Day School, where a two-year-old died in March 2009 after choking on a carrot have pleaded guilty to criminal charges. In addition to agreeing to State licensing requirements, sweeping safety improvements and more stringent oversight by the New York State Office of Child and Family Services (OCFS), the owner and former director of the school pleaded guilty to Reckless Endangerment in the Second Degree. As part of the plea agreement, the center must remain licensed and subject to the requirements of OCFS, including the fact that neither of the defendants is permitted to resume their former positions at the school. The civil claim in connection with the death of the child is being handled by attorney Thomas J. Foley of Foley Griffin Jacobson & Faria, LLP.

October 6, 2010

Notice of Claim

In order to bring a negligence claim against the government, it is necessary to notify the government of the claim within 90 days of the event that causes rises to the claim. This notification is known as a "notice of claim." The specific requirements for the notice of claim are set forth in the law. There are circumstances where a person may not know about the claim within 90 days of the event. The Courts will sometimes makes exceptions for those people and allow them to file a late notice of claim. The recent case of Dixon v City of New York illustrated one of those rare occasions where the Court permitted the plaintiffs to file a late notice of claim. In Dixon, the plaintiffs made a claim against the New York City Medical Examiner in connection with the M.E.'s handling of the autopsy of their son. The Dixons did not become aware of the M.E.'s claimed negligence until they received the autopsy report, likely more than 90 days after the M.E.'s negligence. The Court, however, allowed the Dixons to file a late notice of claim, holding that their claim became ripe at the time the plaintiffs became aware of the defendants' actions and suffered mental anguish as a result, not at the time of the autopsy.

October 5, 2010

Carousel Day School

On October 4, criminal defendants Eugene Formica, the owner of Carousel Day School in Hicksville, and Kathryn Cordaro, its manager, both pleaded guilty to misdemeanor charges for running an unlicensed child care center. These defendants were charged following the death of a toddler in their day care program. According to the information gathered, the defendants lacked the proper license to run the day care center. As a result, the school was not properly regulated leading to dangerous conditions and practices existing at the school. The civil claim against Carousel is being handled by Foley Griffin Jacobson & Faria partner, Thomas J. Foley, Esq.

Serious personal injury

In order to be successful on an automobile "personal injury" claim, a plaintiff must prove that her injuries met the personal injury "threshold." What injuries meet the threshold is a topic often discusses by the Courts. Recently the Court in Ballard v. Cuneen, 2010 NY Slip Op 06771, found that the defendant's failed to allege sufficient information establishing that the plaintiff's injuries did not meet the threshold. In particular the Court held that the defendant's own doctor found that the plaintiff had limited range of motion in her spine. Additionally, the Court held that the defendant's never addressed plaintiff's claim that that she sustained a medically-determined injury or impairment of a nonpermanent nature which prevented her from performing substantially all of the material acts which constituted her usual and customary daily activities for not less than 90 days during the 180 days immediately following the accident.

October 2, 2010

Slip and fall

For attorneys to to bring a successful "slip and fall" lawsuit," it is necessary to prove that the property owner knew of the dangerous condition before the fall or the owner created the condition. Without proving knowledge or creation of the condition, the case will not succeed. A recent case in the second department demonstrated this. In Arzu v. County of Nassau the plaintiff allegedly sustained personal injuries when he slipped and fell on water on the bathroom floor of the defendants' facility. The defendants established their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that they did not create the alleged hazardous condition or have actual or constructive notice of it (see Otey v City of New York, 42 AD3d 515; Gallais-Pradal v YWCA of Brooklyn, 33 AD3d 660; Perlongo v Park City 3 & 4 Apts., Inc., 31 AD3d 409; Lowe v Olympia & York Cos. [USA], 238 AD2d 317). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320). Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, there was insufficient evidence to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendants had actual notice of a recurring hazardous condition which proximately caused him to fall (see Gallais-Pradal v YWCA of Brooklyn, 33 AD3d 660; Perlongo v Park City 3 & 4 Apts., Inc., 31 AD3d 409). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

September 30, 2010

Notice of Claim

In order to bring a negligence claim against the government, it is necessary to file a notice of claim within a short period after the event that gives rise to the claim. The courts are very strict in interpreting the time period. Recently the Second Department in Werner v. Nyack Union Free School Dist.,(N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept.)held that the request by parents of a minor to file a notice of claim after an 8 month delay was not warranted. The parent's delay of more than 8 months following expiration of the 90-day period after her negligence claim against a school district arose from the student's injuries allegedly sustained by slipping on spilled water on the gymnasium floor. The Court found that this did not warrant leave to serve late notice of the claim. The parent's excuses for the delay were not reasonable. The student incident report and medical claim form prepared by school officials after the accident did not provide the district with actual knowledge of the essential facts of the claim. The district would be substantially prejudiced in its defense upon a grant of leave to serve late notice.

September 29, 2010

Construction accident

In a recent New York State case in the Second Department, the Court found that there was a tripping hazard caused by mislaid contractors' crowbar. The actions of the defendants constituted premises condition. The crowbar was left on the floor of an office doorway by painters who had ceased their work and were no longer using their tools for that day. The Court found that these actions constituted a "premises condition," triggering the "actual or constructive notice" standard. The crowbar was a mere consequence of the painters' work after a day's work had been completed.

August 31, 2010

Post accident changes often inadmissible

Many times after a person has been injured due to negligence, changes may occur as a result of the negligence. For instance a property owner can make changes that make his or her property safer. The law wants to encourage this type of behavior. Therefore, in most cases evidence of changes after an accident (also known as "subsequent remedial measures" is inadmissible. A recent case highlighted this rationale. In Alfieri v. Carmelite Nursing Home, Inc. ,(N.Y.City Civ.Ct.)
Litigation - Evidence of subsequent remedial training is inadmissible to show employee's negligence or employer's negligent control.
Evidence of the subsequent remedial training of an employee is inadmissible to show the employee's negligence or the employer's negligent control over the employee, a New York trial court has ruled as a matter of apparent first impression under state law. Consequently, the court ruled, evidence of any post-accident training received by a nursing home employee would be inadmissible to show the nursing home's negligence at the time of an accident in which a 90-year-old resident fell and sustained a hip fracture. Thus, pursuant to the rule that evidence that is inadmissible at trial is also undiscoverable pre-trial, evidence of the employee's post-accident training was undiscoverable in the personal injury action arising from the resident's fall.

April 27, 2010

Parents responsible for their kids?

What happens if your child intentionally injures someone? Are you responsible civilly for your child's actions? The answer is sometimes. Most often parents are not held responsible for their child's criminal, reckless or negligent behavior. As with any general rule, there are however, exceptions. For instance if your child negligently injures another child with a BB gun given to the child by you,the parent, you can be held liable under the theory of negligent entrustment. Additionally if your child commits an intentional assault, you could be held liable if your child had "prior vicious propensities" and you did nothing about it. The good news for parents is that but for very limited circumstances, you will most often not be responsible for your child's negligent and/or criminal actions.

April 21, 2010

Sidewalk trip and fall cases

We are often consulted by clients regarding pursuing a claim in connection with a trip and fall on a sidewalk. People commonly wish to purse these claims because significant injuries are generally involved and insurance companies do not offer an appropriate sum of money to settle. The first step in evaluating the claim is to examine the defect that caused the fall. The Courts have repeatedly found that small (a.k.a diminimis) defects are not enough of a hazard to warrant a successful claim. Therefore the defect must be large enough to clear that initial hurdle. The second step would be to examine the local laws regarding sidewalk defects. If the sidewalk is owned by a municipality (and most are) the municipality must receive "prior written notice" of the defect in order to be successful in a claim against the municipality. Since this rarely exists, the final step is to determine if there are any local laws wherein the municipality transfers liability for the care and upkeep of the sidewalk to the adjacent property owner. Assuming there is a transfer of responsibility and liability, a successful claim against the property owner is possible.

February 26, 2010

Trip and Fall accidents

We often receive calls from clients who have been injured in a trip and fall accident on a sidewalk. For a variety of reasons, these cases can be tough. Like most cases where an injury occurs on someone's property, notice of the defect to the owner of the property is a central issue. Also, the size of the defect is an issue. Recently our Second Department appeals court dismissed a sidewalk trip and fall case against the Town of Riverhead finding that the defect was "trivial." The court took into account the appearance of the subject walkway, the extent of the height differential between the walkway and the adjacent unpaved ground, and the time, place, and circumstances of the accident. In the Riverhead case, the Court held that the defendant established its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the alleged defect did not, by reason of its location, the weather conditions, or other relevant circumstances, have any of the characteristics of a trap or snare, and was trivial as a matter of law and therefore not actionable prove liability, that is responsibility for the happening of the accident.