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

Federal Judge Blasts Use of Statistics on Race to Set Damages

A Brooklyn federal judge slammed the use of statistics showing racial differences in life expectancy to determine damages for a catastrophically injured black man. The man was rendered a quadriplegic in the 2003 crash of the New York City-operated Staten Island Ferry. Last month, the judge awarded the man damages of $18.3 million. The city had sought to limit his damages on a number of grounds, arguing that his past criminal records as much as his race indicated a shorter life expectancy. The judge held that the consideration of statistical differences in life expectancy among races in determining damages would be discriminatory and unconstitutional. http://www.foleygriffin.com/

Student Assault - Brooklyn

In the case of S.K. v. City of New York, the plaintiff SK was a 7th grader from Brooklyn who was injured during a fight with a fellow student, LC, at the end of gym class. LC assaulted SK and struck him the head. This caused SK to have a hemorrhage that necessitated approximately ten brain surgeries. There was evidence that the Board of Education of the City of New York was aware that SK had previously and repeatedly been harassed and assaulted by fellow students, including LC. There was also evidence that the Board refused to transfer SK to a safer school after repeated requests by his father. At the time of the assault, LC initially cursed at SK and then SK cursed back. LC threw the initial punch and SK hit LC back. The attorneys for the Board, who obviously forgot what it was like to be a 7th grader, argued that SK deliberately chose to continue the fight instead of retreating or seeking help from the gym teacher. They asked the judge to throw the case out of court. In response to this move, SK's father offered a detailed history of the complaints he made to the school along with four specific incidents where SK was attacked by other students in 1998. He stated he met with the principal about these incidents. He also wrote a letter wherein he detailed the incidents of harassment and physical assault and asked that his son be transferred. He detailed similar incidents throughout the year of 1999. The judge wisely refused to dismiss SK's case, stating that it was up to a jury to decide (1) if the Board should have provided closer supervision of SK or taken other action to protect him, (2) if SK was a voluntary participant in the fight with LC or was merely acting in self defense, (3) if the gym teacher provided adequate supervision of his students, (4) if SK's chronic problems with other students required closer supervision, (5) if the Board was on notice of such problems, and (6) if the Board breached its duty to adequately supervise SK. http://www.foleygriffin.com/

Playground Injury by Child

On September 7, 2004, the eight-year-old plaintiff was injured at a playground on the New York City Housing Authority's premises when she climbed on an inverted fish tank and the glass broke, causing injuries to her leg. The child's mother testified that the fish tank had not been in the playground the day before, but that it was there when she and the plaintiff arrived late in the afternoon or evening on the day of the accident. Other evidence was offered to show that the fish tank had been in a "drop area" adjacent to the playground for one or two weeks and that a child dragged it into the playground when the plaintiff arrived on the day of the accident. The defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The Court refused to dismiss the case. http://www.foleygriffin.com/

Lead Paint Poisoning - Jury Verdict - Pain & Suffering

Brooklyn Supreme Court Justice Saitta, in his decision of June 23, 2008 in the case of Solis-Vicuna v. Notias, denied the defendants motion to set aside the jury verdict against them. The jury decided that the plaintiff in the case was entitled to future pain and suffering but not past pain and suffering, which while uncommon was not inconsistent. The plaintiff in the case sued defendants for personal injury resulting from the lead paint poisoning of the child plaintiffs while they lived in defendants' building. The evidence at trial was that the children's pain and suffering caused by the lead poisoning would manifest in the future as developmental deficiencies of their mental and intellectual abilities. The children's expert testified that lead intoxication would become evident as the children grew older. Justice Saitta ruled that the testimony at trial supported the jury's findings that the children will suffer in the future as a result of the lead poisoning. www.foleygriffin.com

Child Hurt On Collapsed Bleacher

On May 19, 2008, Brooklyn Supreme Court Justice Robert Miller decided in the case of Einhorn v. City of New York, that injured students of a Brooklyn private school could continue their lawsuit not only against the City of New York, but against their congregation and their school for the negligent planning, operation and control of a wedding that they were attending. The students were injured when the bleachers they were watching the wedding from collapsed underneath them. The evidence showed that the bleachers were over flowing with people. The Court held that the congregation could be sued because a jury may find that as the organizer of the wedding it had a duty to its invited guests, including the students, to use reasonable and ordinary care to insure against foreseeable risks, which included preventing overcrowding of the bleachers.

Slip & Fall Accidents in New York State

Slip & Fall Accidents: As attorneys practicing in the field of personal injury in New York City and Long Island, we have many clients who have been injured in slip, trip and fall accidents. The first thing that we advise our clients at their initial interview, is the current applicable law in New York State. In order for a victim of a slip, trip and fall accident to be successful, she must submit to the Court that is hearing her case, sufficient evidence to create "a triable issue of fact" of whether or not the defendants either created the defective condition that caused her to fall or had actual or constructive notice of the defective condition. This can be proven by evidence that the defendants actually created the condition, or that they actually knew about the exact condition that made the victim fall. The victim may also prove this "notice" requirement by submitting evidence that an ongoing and recurring dangerous condition existed in the area of the incident, which was routinely left unaddressed by the defendants. This does not have to be the exact condition that the victim fell upon. If the victim does establish a condition was continuously present, the defendants may then be charged with notice of each specific re-occurrence of the hazardous condition. These rules are applied once the victim has successfully identified the proper defendants and followed all the legal requirements to effectively prosecute a civil case against them. As in most areas of the law, there are exceptions to these rules. It takes a cautious practitioner to identify and pursue all the proper parties and arguments in a slip, trip and fall case. www.foleygriffin.com