Personal Injury

Published on: December 18, 2024

Petition to file late notice of claim against NYC denied due to insufficient evidence. Lobos v. City of New York, 219 A.D.3d 720 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023)

by Stephen Bilkis

The case arose from injuries sustained during a car accident allegedly caused by a high-speed police chase. The incident occurred on April 1, 2021. The petitioners were injured in a car accident when their vehicle was struck by a Mercedes that ran a red light. According to the petitioners, the Mercedes was being pursued by NYPD officers in a high-speed chase at the time of the collision. The petitioners were hospitalized following the accident.

While recovering, the petitioners claimed that an unidentified individual affiliated with the NYPD’s “internal affairs” told them about the police chase. They filed a petition on October 21, 2021, to serve a late notice of claim against the City of New York, alleging that the City’s negligence during the police pursuit contributed to their injuries. Along with their petition, they submitted affidavits and a police report. The petitioners argued that the City had actual knowledge of the incident and would not be prejudiced by the late filing.

Question Before the Court

Published on: December 16, 2024

Court allowed late claims against Suffolk County for water contamination linked to airport chemicals. Brooks v. Cnty. of Suffolk, 177 A.D.3d 969 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)

by Stephen Bilkis

In cases involving claims against public entities in New York, adhering to procedural requirements is critical. The case involving petitioners who sought to file late notices of claim against Suffolk County highlights these requirements. The petitioners alleged contamination of their drinking water due to chemicals originating from firefighting foam used at a county-owned facility. The central issue before the court was whether the petitioners should be permitted to file late notices of claim against Suffolk County under General Municipal Law § 50-e(5).

Background Facts

In July 2016, Suffolk County issued a news release advising property owners near the Gabreski Airport in Southampton that their private wells might be contaminated with toxic chemicals, including PFOS and PFOA. These chemicals were linked to firefighting foam used at the airport, which was owned and operated by the county.

Published on: December 14, 2024

Court allowed a late notice of claim after worker injured in subway explosion. Marando v. City of N.Y., 66 Misc. 3d 1225 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2020)

by Stephen Bilkis

In personal injury cases involving public corporations, filing a timely notice of claim is a mandatory step for initiating a lawsuit. When this timeline is missed, petitioners may seek permission from the court to file a late notice of claim. The case of Marando v. City of N.Y., 66 Misc. 3d 1225 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2020) provides a clear illustration of how courts evaluate such petitions.

Background Facts

On September 26, 2018, Domenico Marando, a carpenter employed by Skanska, was working on the renovation of subway walls on the Coney Island-bound N-Line train track. During his work, an electrical explosion occurred, throwing him ten feet and causing injuries to his neck, right shoulder, and left knee. He was immediately transported by ambulance to Maimonides Hospital.

Published on: September 2, 2024

Whether defendant is a “residential health care facility” as defined by §2801-d of the Public Health Law. Burkhart v. People, Inc., 10 N.Y.S.3d 767 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)

by Stephen Bilkis

New York’s Public Health Law § 2801-d allows patients of residential health care facilities, like nursing homes, to pursue legal action if they are deprived of rights or benefits outlined in contracts or state regulations. The law provides a means for patients to seek compensation when facilities fail to meet standards that ensure their well-being, addressing issues such as inadequate care or violation of regulatory requirements.

In Burkhart v. People, Inc., 10 N.Y.S.3d 767 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015), the court had to decide whether the facility qualified as a “residential health care facility” under New York’s Public Health Law § 2801-d. This case arose after Brian Burkhart, a developmentally disabled resident, suffered severe injuries due to alleged negligence by the group home’s employees.

Background Facts

Published on: August 5, 2024

Court determined that there were issues of fact about nursing home’s inspection failure and evidence spoliation. Turner v. N. Manhattan Nursing Home, Inc., 2018 N.Y. Slip Op. 30406 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2018

by Stephen Bilkis

Turner v. N. Manhattan Nursing Home, Inc., 2018 N.Y. Slip Op. 30406 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2018) involves the unfortunate circumstances surrounding the injury and subsequent death of Sarah Louise Drayton, a long-term resident of a New York nursing home. The legal action arose from alleged negligence by the nursing home staff during a routine transfer using a Hoyer lift.

A Hoyer lift transfer is a procedure used to safely move individuals with limited mobility, such as those in nursing homes or hospitals, from one position to another, typically from a bed to a wheelchair or vice versa. The Hoyer lift is a mechanical device that consists of a hydraulic or electric-powered lift and a sling, which is placed under the patient. The sling is then attached to the lift, and the patient is carefully lifted and transferred to the desired location. This process requires trained caregivers to ensure that the sling is properly positioned and secured, minimizing the risk of injury to both the patient and the caregivers. Hoyer lifts are commonly used to assist patients who cannot move on their own due to conditions such as paralysis, severe injury, or chronic illness.

Background Facts

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: 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