New York Personal Injury Lawyer Blog 24/7

Published on: January 10, 2024

Court denied habeas corpus based on risk of contracting COVID. People v. Keyser, 184 A.D.3d 189 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020)

by Stephen Bilkis

A writ of habeas corpus is a legal petition filed by a person who is detained or imprisoned, challenging the legality of their detention. The purpose of a writ of habeas corpus is to bring the detained individual before a court or judge to determine whether their imprisonment or detention is lawful.

People v. Keyser, 184 A.D.3d 189 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020) involves an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court which granted petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of Jalil Muntaqim, a 68-year-old black inmate serving concurrent prison sentences at Sullivan Correctional Facility. The petitioner argued that Muntaqim’s continued detention at the facility during the COVID-19 pandemic amounted to unconstitutional punishment due to his age, race, and underlying medical conditions, putting him at significant risk of serious illness or death if infected with the virus.

Background Facts

Published on: January 8, 2024

Court considered whether a police officer exercised proper standard of care in operating an emergency vehicle. McLoughlin v. City of Syracuse, 2022 N.Y. Slip Op. 3608 (N.Y. App. Div. 2022)

by Stephen Bilkis

Under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104, drivers of authorized emergency vehicles engaged in emergency operations enjoy specific privileges. These include the ability to exceed speed limits, proceed past traffic signals and signs, and disregard regulations under certain conditions. However, these privileges come with the obligation to operate the vehicle “with due regard for the safety of all persons.” This means that, even in emergency situations, drivers must avoid reckless actions that could endanger lives or property. If their conduct involves reckless disregard for safety, they can be held liable for resulting injuries or damages.

McLoughlin v. City of Syracuse, 2022 N.Y. Slip Op. 3608 (N.Y. App. Div. 2022) involves a collision between a civilian’s vehicle and a police vehicle operated by Officer Jacob R. Breen from the City of Syracuse Police Department. The civilian initiated legal proceedings seeking damages for injuries sustained in the accident. The defendant, representing Officer Breen, asserted the emergency doctrine affirmative defense, moving for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint. The court’s decision on this motion is the subject of analysis in this blog.

Background Facts

Published on: January 3, 2024

U.S. Supreme Court determined when a prison official may be held liable under the Eighth Amendment’s “deliberate indifference” standard. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994)

by Stephen Bilkis

Despite widespread misconceptions, prisoners do have rights protected under the Constitution, particularly under the Eighth Amendment, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. This includes the right to be free from conditions that pose a substantial risk of harm, access to necessary medical care, and protection from violence by other inmates or prison staff. Additionally, the Fourteenth Amendment ensures due process of law for prisoners, guaranteeing fair treatment in disciplinary proceedings and access to legal remedies.

However, some individuals may overlook or dismiss prisoners’ rights due to societal stigmas or misconceptions about the criminal justice system. They may view incarceration as a form of punishment that justifies depriving inmates of their rights. Yet, recognizing prisoners’ rights is crucial not only for upholding constitutional principles but also for promoting rehabilitation, maintaining order within prisons, and ensuring accountability for prison authorities.

Background facts

Published on: January 1, 2024

Default judgement on issue of liability in nursing home neglect case. Duran v. Isabella Geriatric Ctr., 2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 30500 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2023)

by Stephen Bilkis

In New York, nursing home residents are entitled to certain rights and protections under state and federal law. These legal protections ensure that residents receive adequate care and are treated with dignity. When a nursing home fails to meet these standards, the consequences can be severe, leading to injuries or even death. In Duran v. Isabella Geriatric Ctr., 2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 30500 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2023), the plaintiff sought to recover damages for a violation of these protections after a patient suffered a fall at a nursing home.

Background Facts

The plaintiff initiated the action on September 14, 2021, seeking damages under several causes of action, including violation of Public Health Law §§ 2801-d and 2803-c, negligence, medical malpractice, and gross negligence. Public Health Law §§ 2801-d and 2803-c are designed to protect the rights of residents in nursing homes and other healthcare facilities. Section 2801-d allows residents to sue for damages if their rights, as defined by state law, are violated, ensuring they can seek compensation for harm or injury. Section 2803-c outlines specific patient rights, including the right to adequate and appropriate medical care, privacy, and the ability to voice grievances without fear of retaliation. Together, these laws serve as a legal framework to uphold the dignity and safety of vulnerable individuals in care facilities.

Published on: January 1, 2024

In a case alleging abuse of inmate rights, the court had to determine whether the plaintiff filed his claim too late. Devane v. Doe, 20-CV-9649 (NSR) (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 6, 2023)

by Stephen Bilkis

Even when people are incarcerated, they retain rights. Under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, prisoners in New York, as in other states, are entitled to certain rights aimed at protecting them from cruel and unusual punishment and ensuring due process of law.

The Eighth Amendment prohibits the imposition of cruel and unusual punishment, which encompasses actions by prison officials or conditions within correctional facilities that result in unnecessary suffering or harm to inmates. This includes physical abuse, excessive use of force, deliberate indifference to serious medical needs, and unsafe or unsanitary living conditions. Prisoners have the right to be free from conditions that pose a substantial risk of serious harm to their health or safety.

The Fourteenth Amendment extends additional protections to prisoners by guaranteeing due process of law. This means that inmates have the right to fair and impartial treatment in disciplinary proceedings, access to adequate medical care, protection from retaliation for exercising their constitutional rights, and the opportunity to challenge their confinement through legal procedures.

Published on: December 13, 2023

Inmate failed to prove excessive force by corrections officers. Bookman v. State, # 2016-015-617 (N.Y. Ct. Cl. Oct. 17, 2016)

by Stephen Bilkis

Inmates are protected from the use of excessive force by various laws and regulations at both the federal and state levels. One significant federal statute is the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment, including the use of excessive force by correctional officers. This amendment serves as a fundamental safeguard for inmates’ rights and establishes a baseline standard for the treatment of prisoners.

Additionally, many states have enacted laws and regulations specifically addressing the use of force in correctional facilities. For example, in New York, the Correction Law and the New York Codes, Rules, and Regulations (NYCRR) provide guidelines for the use of force by correctional officers. These laws outline the circumstances under which force may be justified, such as self-defense or maintaining order, and emphasize the importance of using only the minimum amount of force necessary to achieve a legitimate objective.

Furthermore, court decisions, such as those interpreting the Eighth Amendment, help to clarify the legal standards surrounding the use of force in prisons and ensure that inmates are afforded adequate protection against abuse. Bookman v. State is one of those cases.

Published on: December 4, 2023

Court determined that inmate was not subjected to inhumane conditions at the Anna M. Kross Center Correctional Facility, Rodriguez v. the City of N.Y., 87 A.D.3d 867 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)

by Stephen Bilkis

In the case of Albert Rodriguez v. The City of New York et al., the plaintiff alleged that he slipped and fell on a wet floor at the Anna M. Kross Center correctional facility on Rikers Island, where he was incarcerated. He claimed that the dangerous condition was caused by the defendants’ failure to repair leaks in the facility and that they were deliberately indifferent to the conditions that posed a risk to his safety. The complaint also asserted that defendants failed to provide immediate medical attention after the accident, violating Rodriguez’s civil rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.

Background Facts

Albert Rodriguez was incarcerated on Rikers Island when he slipped and fell on a wet floor. The conditions leading to his fall were allegedly caused by leaks in the facility’s roof, ceiling, and pipes, which had not been repaired by the defendants. Despite being aware of these leaks, Rodriguez claimed that Valerie Oliver, the Warden of the Center, failed to address them adequately. Rodriguez asserted that the defendants’ indifference to these hazardous conditions resulted in his accident.

Published on: December 4, 2023

Whether the court erred in denying the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on negligence and the emergency operation defense under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104. Torres-Cummings v. Niagara Falls Police Dep’t, 193 A.D.3d 1372 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)

by Stephen Bilkis

This case involves a collision between a plaintiff’s vehicle and a police vehicle operated by Officer Kelly Rougeux of the Niagara Falls Police Department. The plaintiff sought damages for injuries sustained in the accident, alleging negligence on the part of Officer Rougeux.

Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104 grants certain privileges to drivers of authorized emergency vehicles engaged in emergency operations. These privileges include the ability to exceed speed limits, disregard traffic signals, and proceed through red lights, provided it does not endanger life or property. However, these privileges are not absolute. The law mandates that even in emergency operations, drivers must operate their vehicles with “due regard for the safety of all persons.” If an emergency vehicle’s operation involves reckless disregard for others’ safety, the driver can be held liable for resulting damages.

In the context of a negligence case, if a driver is engaged in exempt conduct under § 1104(b) during emergency operations, the reckless disregard standard applies. This standard demands more than ordinary negligence and holds the driver accountable for injuries caused by the reckless exercise of privileges. On the other hand, if the injury results from conduct not covered by the specified privileges, ordinary negligence principles come into play. The determination of which standard applies can significantly impact the outcome of a case and the amount of damages awarded. Understanding these distinctions is essential for evaluating the conduct of emergency vehicle drivers and establishing liability in personal injury claims arising from accidents involving such vehicles.

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