Premises Liability

Published on: December 23, 2024

Court allowed late notice of claim after trip-and-fall injury at school due to timely knowledge. Messick v. Greenwood Lake Union Free Sch. Dist., 84 N.Y.S.3d 215 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018)

by Stephen Bilkis

In a legal dispute involving a trip-and-fall incident at Greenwood Lake Middle School, a petitioner sought permission to file a late notice of claim against the school district. The issue centered on whether the delay in filing caused prejudice to the school district and if the petitioner had demonstrated sufficient grounds to justify the late notice. The case provides important insights into the standards courts apply in evaluating late notices of claim under Education Law § 3813 and General Municipal Law § 50-e(5).

Background Facts

The petitioner’s claim stemmed from an incident on December 6, 2015, when she attended her grandson’s basketball game at Greenwood Lake Middle School. While exiting the school, she tripped over unsecured floor mats in the vestibule at the main entrance. The fall caused a displaced fracture in her left femur, requiring hip replacement surgery and additional procedures to address the injury.

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: 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

Published on: August 9, 2023

Court addressed the issue of whether the defendant was negligent in maintaining its premises. Scheer v. Stop & Shop Supermarket Co., 110 A.D.3d 1039 (2d Dep’t 2013)

by Stephen Bilkis

Product liability cases are complex and require a thorough understanding of the law and the facts surrounding the case. In a premises liability case against a retailer store, the plaintiff must show that the store had a duty to maintain a safe environment for its customers and that it breached that duty by failing to address a known hazard or dangerous condition. The plaintiff must also show that the store’s breach of duty was the proximate cause of their injuries, and that they suffered damages as a result.

In Scheer v. Stop & Shop Supermarket Co., the plaintiff, Susan Scheer, was injured while shopping at Stop & Shop Supermarket when a can of food fell from the shelf and struck her in the head. Scheer filed a lawsuit against Stop & Shop Supermarket Co., alleging that the store was negligent in failing to properly maintain and inspect its shelves.

Factual Background

Published on: August 7, 2023

Court considered a product liability claim based on an injury from a table saw. Whitaker v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 120 A.D.3d 865 (2d Dep’t 2014)

by Stephen Bilkis

Whitaker v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. is a product liability case that was decided by the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York in 2014. The case involved a plaintiff, Michael Whitaker, who was injured while using a table saw that he had purchased from Sears. The decision of the court in this case is important because it provides guidance on the extent of a manufacturer’s duty to warn consumers about the dangers associated with their products.

Factual Background

In 2003, Michael Whitaker purchased a table saw from Sears. The table saw was designed and manufactured by Rexon Industrial Corp., a Taiwanese company. The saw was sold under the Craftsman brand, which is owned by Sears. The saw came equipped with a blade guard and anti-kickback pawls, which are safety features designed to prevent serious injuries.

Published on: July 26, 2023

Did the defendant retail store breach its duty of care by failing to maintain the premises in a safe condition? Saleh v. Rite Aid Corp., 89 A.D.3d 1022 (2d Dep’t 2011)

by Stephen Bilkis

In Saleh v. Rite Aid Corp., the plaintiff brought a personal injury lawsuit against the defendant after slipping and falling on a wet floor in the defendant’s store. This case raises important legal issues related to premises liability and the duty of property owners to maintain safe premises for their customers.

Factual Background

On January 27, 2006, the plaintiff, Saleh, entered a Rite Aid store in Brooklyn, New York, to purchase items. While walking down an aisle, she slipped and fell on a wet floor. The plaintiff suffered injuries to her knee, hip, and back as a result of the fall.

Published on: July 24, 2023

Vasquez v. Church of God of Prophecy, 155 A.D.3d 807 (2d Dep’t 2017)

by Stephen Bilkis

Premises liability cases often hinge on the question of whether a property owner or occupier had notice of a hazardous condition that caused an injury. In Vasquez v. Church of God of Prophecy, the plaintiff brought suit against a church after she slipped and fell on a wet floor while attending a service. The case raised important questions about the duties of property owners to maintain safe premises and the burden of proof that plaintiffs must meet in premises liability cases.

Factual Background

On the day of the accident, the plaintiff attended a church service at the defendant’s property. While walking from the bathroom to her seat, she slipped and fell on a wet floor, sustaining injuries. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant had negligently failed to maintain the premises in a safe condition and that it had constructive notice of the hazardous condition that caused her injuries.

Published on: July 19, 2023

In a premises liability case, the court considered whether there was constructive notice of the hazard. Vargas v. Target Corp., 137 A.D.3d 1094 (2d Dep’t 2016)

by Stephen Bilkis

Plaintiff, Anna Vargas, filed a personal injury lawsuit against Target Corporation after she slipped and fell on a wet floor at one of its stores.

Factual Background

On December 22, 2008, Anna Vargas went to a Target store located in the Bronx, New York. While she was walking down an aisle in the store, she slipped and fell on a wet floor. Vargas sustained injuries as a result of the fall, including a fractured ankle and herniated discs.

Published on: July 17, 2023

Court determined that the NYCHA should have known about a dangerous condition. Nunez v. New York City Housing Authority, 65 A.D.3d 955 (2d Dep’t 2009)

by Stephen Bilkis

Premises liability is a legal concept that holds property owners and occupiers responsible for injuries that occur on their property due to their failure to maintain safe conditions. This means that property owners have a legal obligation to ensure that their property is free from any hazards or defects that could cause harm to people who visit the property. If a property owner or occupier fails to fulfill this duty, and someone is injured as a result, the owner or occupier may be held liable for the resulting damages. Premises liability cases can arise in a variety of contexts, including slip and fall accidents, dog bites, swimming pool accidents, and more.

Nunez v. New York City Housing Authority involves a dispute over the liability of a property owner for injuries sustained by a tenant. The case highlights the legal principles governing premises liability and the duty of property owners to maintain safe premises.

Factual Background

Published on: May 22, 2023

Appellate Division reviewed a case involving a bicyclist injured in an accident caused by a manhole cover. Bonilla v. City of New York, 165 A.D.3d 675 (1st Dep’t 2018)

by Stephen Bilkis

Bicycling is a popular mode of transportation in New York City, but it can be hazardous, especially when encountering potholes. Potholes on roads, bike lanes, and sidewalks can cause accidents and serious injuries to cyclists. In Bonilla v. City of New York. the court considered whether the City of New York was liable for a cyclist’s injuries resulting from a pothole.

Cycling has become an increasingly popular mode of transportation in New York City, with many residents opting to bike to work, school, or leisure activities. However, cycling in the city can be hazardous due to the many hazards that cyclists face, including potholes, manholes, and other road defects. The case of Bonilla v. City of New York is a premises liability case that addressed the issue of liability for a bicycle accident caused by a manhole cover.

Background