Articles Posted in Car Accidents

Published on:

This is an action to recover damages for serious personal injuries allegedly sustained by plaintiff as a result of a motor vehicle accident that occurred on Route 109 at or near the overpass of the Southern State Parkway, County of Suffolk, New York on March 9, 2005. Plaintiff claims in his complaint that he sustained serious permanent injuries as defined in Section 5102 (d) of the Insurance Law and economic loss greater than basic economic loss, as defined in Section 5102 (a) of the Insurance Law. A Personal Injury Lawyer said that, defendants now move for an order pursuant to CPLR 3212 granting them summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the grounds that plaintiff did not sustain a “serious injury” as defined in Insurance Law § 5102 (d). Plaintiff cross moves for partial summary judgment on liability grounds and for an inquest as to the assessment of damages. Plaintiff opposes defendants’ motion, and defendants have filed a reply.

A Lawyer said that, in support of this motion defendants submit, the pleadings; the plaintiff’s verified bill of particulars; plaintiff’s Hospital emergency department records, including x-ray reports of plaintiff’s cervical and thoracic spine; the affirmed report of defendant’s examining neurologist,; the affirmed report of defendant’s examining radiologist,; the affirmed report of defendant’s examining orthopedist,; plaintiff’s employment verification records dated March 1, 2006; and plaintiff’s deposition testimony.

A source said that, plaintiff claims in his verified bill of particulars that he sustained, among other things, disc bulges of the cervical spine injury and ventral cord abutment; a limited range of motion of the cervical spine injury; weakness in the upper extremities; and lumbar radicular dysfunction. Plaintiff also claims that he sustained scarring, anxiety and mental suffering. Additionally, plaintiff claims that he was totally disabled for about three weeks and that he remains partially disabled to date. Lastly, plaintiff claims that he sustained a serious injury in the categories of a permanent loss of use, a permanent consequential limitation, a significant limitation and a non-permanent injury.

Continue reading

Published on:

This is a case being heard in the Trial Term of the Supreme Court of the State of New York in Kings County, Part 3. This is a personal injury case resulting from an accident.

Case Background

In February of 1957, an accident took place on the corner of Broadway and Hooper Streets in Brooklyn, New York. There are two plaintiffs in this case, the driver of the vehicle and the passenger of a motorcycle that was involved in the accident. The plaintiffs claim that the motorcycle they were on collided with a truck from the Department of Sanitation of the City of New York. The plaintiffs claim that as a result of the collision the motorcyclewent out of control and hit another truck on the other side of the street. Both of the plaintiffs were thrown into the street, which caused personal injuries to them.

Continue reading

Published on:

This case is one of appeal being heard in the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Second Department. The plaintiff in this case has settled his action to recover damages for personal injuries against the tort feasor in the amount of $25,000. This action is brought against the plaintiff’s insurance company for a breach of contract. The plaintiff is seeking to recover damages under the supplementary underinsured motorist endorsement of his auto insurance policy.

Case Background

The plaintiff purchased his car insurance policy from the defendant in December of 1997. In addition to the other coverage from the policy there was supplementary uninsured motorist coverage in the amount of $100,000 for each occurrence. This is the policy that was in effect when the plaintiff was involved in a car accident.

Continue reading

Published on:

This is a case being heard in the Supreme Court of Kings County. The defendant has moved for a summary judgment in this case to dismiss the complaint made against the plaintiff based on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the requirements of Insurance Law section 5102.

Case Background

The plaintiff began this instant action against the defendant in March of 2010 by filing a summons and instant complaint with the Kings County Clerk’s office. The defendant joined the action by verified answer in April of 2010. A note of issue was filed regarding the case in November of 2010.

Continue reading

Published on:

This case is about the defendants’ renewed cross motion for summary judgment seeking the dismissal of the complaint on the ground that Plaintiff failed to sustain a serious injury as defined in Insurance Law § 5102 (d)

On August 22, 2002, Plaintiff commenced this personal injury action against the defendant driver and defendant taxi company. On January 1, 2001, Plaintiff alleged that defendant driver rear-ended his vehicle at the traffic light on Flatbush Avenue Extension at Livingston Street in Brooklyn while he was stopped at the light. In the court’s earlier decision, defendant taxi company was held vicariously liable for the negligence of its driver. The decision also denied defendants’ summary judgment cross-motion, which was based on the plaintiff’s alleged failure to establish a qualifying serious injury, but said denial was without prejudice to renewal upon completion of discovery. Hence, this renewed motion for summary judgment.

The defendants argued that the plaintiff has failed to meet the statutory requirements of a serious injury under Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Continue reading

Published on:

When an accident occurs that involves a personal injury, it is important that the injured person seeks help immediately. The laws of New York are truncated when it comes to personal injury. They have set limits on many of the areas that involve compensable injury. If a person does not file their claim within a certain period of time, they will be barred from recovering damages at all. By the same token, the person must prove that their injury is serious under the guidelines of the law. The law defines the guidelines that describe an injury as either serious or substantial. It also provides guidelines that establish what permanent loss of use relates to. For a person to recover damages based on these statutes, they must be able to establish that their injury falls into these categories.

A substantial injury is one that demands a change in the person’s lifestyle. A person who has suffered from a substantial or serious injury will have to stop doing many of the activities that they used to be able to do. If a person is able to continue performing their jobs, or handling their home lives in much the same manner that they were conducting themselves prior to the injury, then they have not sustained a serious injury in accordance with the laws of the state of New York. Generally, when a person makes a claim for personal injury as the result of an accident, they must bring forth expert testimony that will support their claim. A claim of serious injury that is not supported by medical evidence will fail. In fact, a claim of serious injury that is supported only by medical expert opinion and not supported by concrete medical tests will likely fail as well. When a person files a claim of this sort, it is critical that they are sure that they can present this type of medical evidence in court.

Sometimes, even having several doctors willing to testify in your behalf can be challenged. In one case from New York, a limousine driver was involved in an accident that resulted in his sustaining multiple injuries that he claimed were serious under the statute. In fact, some of his claims involved the fact that he was deprived the use of some body parts. He also claimed a serious spine injury and brain injury. He had no less than four medical experts testify on his behalf that he was unable to work or perform daily functions that he had once enjoyed based upon the injury that he had sustained.

Continue reading

Published on:

A father died as a result of a vehicular accident. His surviving spouse and their two children filed a case for wrongful death against the owners of the vehicle that collided with the father’s car. After the litigation, the owners of the vehicle paid a sum of $182, 717.00 in damages.

By the time that the wrongful death suit was terminated, the surviving spouse had also died. The owners of the vehicles then filed this action to ask the court to determine who should receive the judgment award, and what the sharing should be among those who should receive the judgment award. The owners of the car that collided with the deceased’s car came to court to ask for a final determination as to the sharing of the heirs and surviving relative of the deceased in the proceeds of the wrongful death action.

The estate of the surviving spouse claims that it should receive half of the proceeds from the wrongful death suit as she is entitled to share in her deceased husband’s estate. The two surviving children of the deceased father asked for the disqualification of the surviving spouse’s estate and that the proceeds should instead be shared by them, the two children of the deceased.

Continue reading

Published on:

Plaintiff as administrator of the estate of the deceased Saldana commenced this personal injury and wrongful death action as a result of an automobile accident that occurred on October 3, 2008 on Plandome Road, Plandome, County of Nassau. The Plaintiff’s decedent, who was eighteen-years-old at the time of the car accident, died as a result of his injuries. A Nassau Lawyer said that, at the time of the accident, the Plaintiff’s decedent was a front-seat passenger in a motor vehicle operated by the defendant Guzman, and owned by the defendant Lopez. It is alleged that the defendant Guzman, lost control of his vehicle and crashed into a tree as a result of drag racing with a motor vehicle operated by the Defendant, Molina, and owned by the Defendant Eldredge.

Plaintiff seek an order granting him summary judgment on the issue of liability, based upon a theory of collateral estoppel as the Defendants, Guzman and Molina, pled guilty regarding criminal charges stemming from the same incident complained of in the complaint in this action. Whereas, defendants Molina and Eldredge filed a cross-motion, seeking an order, to issue a Protective Order, suppressing the criminal transcript of Molina’s criminal court plea for purposes of this motion and any subsequent proceeding.

The issues in this case are whether plaintiff is entitled for summary judgment making the defendants liable for the wrongful death of plaintiff’s decedent; and whether defendant Molina is entitled to suppression of his criminal court plea, warranting the issuance of a protective order.

Continue reading

Published on:

A complainant urges, without seeming precedent, that the converse is also justified. That, when, as a matter of law, the threshold has been reached, under one or more of the definitions of the Insurance Law, that courts are under a similar obligation to remove the question of threshold compliance, from a jury’s consideration, thus, leaving only assessments of damage.

Following a concession of liability, the issue of damage was tried before the court and a jury. At the close of evidence, the accused renewed its motion to dismiss for the complainant’s failure to prove a legitimate case, in not satisfying the threshold requirements; it was denied. The court then charged four qualification definitions under the Insurance Law. The accused excepted to the charge of any definition other than the 90-180 day disability option. The complainant agreed in advance with the courts charge, and thereafter raised no exception to it. After reception of a unanimous jury verdict, for the accused, the complainant moved orally, to set aside the verdict, as being totally against the weight of the credible evidence, and that no question of fact existed as to serious injury, which should have permitted the jury to determine that the threshold requirements under the Insurance Law had not been satisfied. Post-trial memoranda were requested and received.

Specifically, there was evidence, and a concession, that the complainant, a New York City Housing Authority Police Officer was absent from work for a period of 96 days. The evidence was accompanied by the medical testimony of both a treating orthopedist and psychiatrist. Together it is contended, that this qualified the complainant’s injuries as serious, under the following definition option of the Insurance Law or a medically determined injury or impairment of a non-permanent nature which prevents the injured person from performing substantially all of the customary daily activities for not less than ninety (90) days during the one hundred eighty (180) days immediately following the occurrence of the injury or impairment.

Continue reading

Posted in:
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

A woman moves in accordance to the Insurance Law of the State of New York for an order granting her summary judgment on the ground that the complainant man did not sustain a serious injuryin the subject accident as defined by New York State Insurance Law. The complainant opposes the woman’s motion.

The lawsuit stems from personal injuries allegedly sustained by the man as a result of an automobile accident with the woman when the man’s vehicle was exiting Northern State Parkway. The man was operating a 2003 Lincoln Town Car which was owned by his employer, a car company. The woman was the owner and operator of a 2001 Chevrolet. It is alleged that the automobile that was being driven by man was struck in the rear by the automobile being driven by the woman. The man claims that the impact was heavy and caused his glasses to fly off and his body to move back and forth inside the vehicle despite the fact that he was seat belted As a result of the car accident the man claims that he sustained injuries. He commenced the action with service of a Summons and Verified Complaint.

It is well settled that the proponent of a motion for summary judgment must make a legitimate complaint showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by providing sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of material issues of fact. To obtain summary judgment, the moving party must establish its claim or defense by tendering sufficient evidentiary proof, in admissible form, sufficient to warrant the court, as a matter of law, to direct judgment in the movant’s favor. Mere conclusions or unsubstantiated allegations are insufficient to raise a triable issue.

Continue reading

Contact Information