Personal Injury

Published on: November 29, 2012

Plaintiff Argues They Aren’t Obligated to Indemnify the Insured, NY Appellate Court Decides

by Stephen Bilkis

This case is being heard in the Second Department, Appellate Division, of the Supreme Court of the State of New York. The case deals with a judgment that stated the plaintiff was not obligated to defend or indemnify its insured, the defendant, in an underlying personal injurycase that is pending in the Supreme Court of Kings County. The plaintiff of the case is appealing the judgment from the case in the same court that denied her cross motion for summary judgment to declare that the disclaimer of coverage issued to the defendant was a not valid against her and that the plaintiff is obligated to defend or indemnify the defendant in the underlying personal injury action.

Court Decision

The court is ordering that the original order from the Supreme Court of Kings County is reversed as appealed from. The cross motion is granted and remitted to the court for the entry of a judgment declaring that the disclaimer of coverage was invalid against he defendant and they are obligated to defend and indemnify their insured in the underlying personal injury action.

Published on: November 26, 2012

Defendant Insurance Company Files Appeal After Lower Court Ruling for the Plaintiff

by Stephen Bilkis

This particular case involves an insurance company as the respondent and two businesses as the appellants. The case is being heard in the Appellate Division, Second Department, of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.

Case Background

This case involves several related actions. The first action in the case is related to a personal injury. The Supreme Court ordered the defendant in the case lost the case and was ordered to pay for the personal injuries that the plaintiff sustained. The defendant is appealing this verdict that was made in the Supreme Court of Kings County. In this same action the insurance company of the defendant was ordered to indemnify the defendant and to pay the amount specified by the court. The insurance company is appealing this order as well. The second issue that is being appealed by the plaintiff is the order by the court that granted the second defendant a summary judgment in their favor to dismiss the complaints that were made against them.

Published on: November 24, 2012

NY Appellate Court Modified Prior Judgment for the Plaintiff in Injury Case

by Stephen Bilkis

This particular case involves an insurance company as the respondent and two businesses as the appellants. The case is being heard in the Appellate Division, Second Department, of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.

Case Background

This case involves several related actions. The first action in the case is related to a personal injury. The Supreme Court ordered the defendant in the case lost the case and was ordered to pay for the personal injuries that the plaintiff sustained. The defendant is appealing this verdict that was made in the Supreme Court of Kings County. In this same action the insurance company of the defendant was ordered to indemnify the defendant and to pay the amount specified by the court. The insurance company is appealing this order as well. The second issue that is being appealed by the plaintiff is the order by the court that granted the second defendant a summary judgment in their favor to dismiss the complaints that were made against them.

Published on: November 22, 2012

Plaintiff Granted Summary Judgment by Lower Court, Defendant Appeals

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a case being heard in the Second Department, Appellate Division, of the Supreme Court of the State of New York. The action before the court is an appeal by the defendant. The defendant is an appealing the order made by the Supreme Court of Kings County that granted the plaintiff the motion for summary judgment and denied their cross motion for summary judgment.

Case Background

The plaintiff in the case was hired to perform construction work at a location in Manhattan. The defendant was a subcontractor for another company to perform masonry work. The company that the defendant works for entered into the agreement for the work with the clause that the other defendant would obtain an insurance policy for general liability and the plaintiff was to be named as an additional insured on the policy.

Published on: November 19, 2012

Defendant Moves for Motion to Dismiss, Stating Requirements Under NY Insurance Law 5102 Not Met

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a case being held before the Supreme Court of Kings County. The defendant has moved for an order to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint on the basis that the injuries that the plaintiff sustained do not meet the requirements of a serious injury under the New York Insurance Law section 5102.

Case Background

The plaintiff filed a summons and verified complaint with the Kings County Clerk’s office in April of 2009. The defendants replied with a verified answer in August of 2009, thus joining the issue. The note of issue in this case was filed in October of 2010.

Published on: November 15, 2012

Defendants Appeal Motion for Summary Judgment Awarded to the Plaintiff

by Stephen Bilkis

The defendants in this case are separately appealing an order and judgment from the Supreme Court of Kings County that granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and denied both of their cross motions for summary judgment. The order also declared that the defendants are required to defend and if necessary indemnify the plaintiff in an underlying personal injury case.

Case Background

The declaratory judgment action comes from a personal injury action where two parents on the behalf of their three daughters sued the ACS and the Coalition for Hispanic Family Services. The complaint alleged that ACS initiated petitions to have the children removed from the home based on observation of blood in the stool of one of the children and the child’s positive test for an STD. The complaint further alleged that the children were removed from the home and placed them in foster care. The complaint states that the proceedings were protracted because of the prosecutions failure to comply with the orders made by the judge to produce lab reports, witnesses, and medical records.

Published on: November 14, 2012

New York Appellate Court Discusses the Structured Settlement Protection Act

by Stephen Bilkis

This case is a special proceeding pursuant to the General Obligations Law or the Structured Settlement Protection Act. The case is being heard in the Supreme Court of the State of New York in New York County. The petitioner of the case is seeking judicial approval to assign a portion of the structured settlement annuity he received in a personal injury action from 1991 to another petitioner. The respondents of the case do not oppose this action.

Case Background

The petitioner is the recipient of a structured settlement annuity that was issued by the respondents pursuant to a settlement agreement from a personal injury action that took place in 1991. The petitioner receives $750 per month in guaranteed annuity payments from the first of May in 1992 through the 1st of April, 2017. The settlement also provides lump sum payments in the amounts of $10,000 to be received on the first of May, 1997, $15,000 on the first of May, 2002, $25,000 on the first of May, 2007, $50,000 on the first of May 2012, and $80,000 on the first of May in 2017.

Published on: November 10, 2012

Plaintiff Claims Demand for Evidence from Defendant is Too Extensive, NY Appellate Court Decides

by Stephen Bilkis

This action was started by the plaintiff who is seeking recovery for personal injuries sustained by her children as a result of lead poisoning that allegedly occurred while they lived in their home that is owned by the defendants.

The defendant in the case has conducted lead inspections and lead abatements of the property and is requesting and order that requires the plaintiffs to supplement specific responses that are obtained in the bill of particulars and to respond to other discovery demands.

Defendant’s Demands

Published on: November 8, 2012

Plaintiff Moves to Have Lien Vacated, New York Supreme Court Weighs In

by Stephen Bilkis

The plaintiffs in this case individually and as the natural guardian and parents of the infantplaintiff have moved for an order to approve the proposed settlement of this personal injury action and to have the lien from the New York City Department of Social Services vacated against the settlement proceedings. This case is being heard in the Supreme Court of New York County.

Case Background

This case arose from an alleged medical malpractice of the defendants during the birth of the infant plaintiff. The medical malpractice resulted in the infant having severe mental retardation. The plaintiffs and the defendant have entered into a tentative settlement agreement that awards the plaintiff with $1,750,000. The plaintiffs are now seeking approval of the settlement and to establish a special needs trust for the benefit of the infant with the proceeds from the settlement.

Published on: November 7, 2012

Plaintiff Appeals Summary Judgment Awarded to Defendant by Lower Court

by Stephen Bilkis

In this particular action the plaintiff in the case is appealing an order from the Supreme Court of Nassau County that granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment on her counterclaim and awarded her the limit of the insurance policy in question. The order denied the plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment that declared the liability limit at $100,000. The defendant was awarded the principal sum of $224,892.07.

Case Discussion

In a personal injury action the plaintiff argues that they are only obligated to pay the defendant in the amount of the policy liability limit, without interest. The court finds that the appeal must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal was terminated with the entry of judgment of the action.