Articles Posted in Premises Liability

Published on:

by

The plaintiff in this case is Francis Trinidad. The defendant in the matter is the New York City Transit Authority. The case is being heard in the Supreme Court of New York in the State of New York, located in New York County.

The defendant in the case, New York City Transit Authority has moved for an order to grant a summary judgment dismissing the action made against them stating they are not negligent as a matter of law.

Case Background

Continue reading

by
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

by

Barbara Amon is the plaintiff in this case. The defendants in the case are the City of New York, Angelo Messana, and Connie Messana. The case is being heard in the Supreme Court in Richmond County. The defendants in the case have moved for an order to grant a summary judgment to dismiss the case against them. They state that they are not liable for the personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff when she slipped and fell on their property.

Case Facts

The plaintiff is seeking recovery for personal injuries she sustained when she slipped and fell on the cracked pavement located at the front of the defendant’s residence. The crack in question is located on the public sidewalk located in front of the home of the defendants. The crack was around two or four inches from the manhole covers and was raised around one to two inches above the adjoining manhole cover.

Continue reading

by
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

by

Janet Chiocchi and Anthony Chiocchi are the plaintiffs in this case. The Cat Lounge Inc. d/b/a Cat’s Meow is the defendants in the case. This case is being heard in the Suffolk County Court. The plaintiff commenced this action by a summons and complaint that was filed on the 7th of August, 2007.

Case Background

The plaintiff claims that she fell when she was dancing on the premises owned by the defendant. She states that her sandal got stuck to tape that was covering the wires on the ground and this caused her to fall. The defendant denied the allegations in an answer that is dated the 13th of November, 2003. The action was then transferred to this court on the 30th of March, 2011.

Continue reading

by
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

by

This case involves the plaintiffs Ann Marie and Frank S. The defendants in the case are the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and the City of New York. They are also a third party plaintiff against Five Star Parking who is the third party defendant in the case. This case is being heard in the Supreme Court of the State of New York in the Count of New York.

The action in this case comes from a trip and fall accident that occurred on the 16th of May, 2005 in the parking lot 10# located at the La Guardia Airport. The defendant, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey own the land that covers the parking lot. The third party defendant, Five Star Parking operates the parking lot where the accident occurred.

Port Authority’s Argument

Continue reading

by
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

by

The plaintiff in this case is Line Viviane Rangon. The defendants in the case are Skillman Avenue Corp., Lal C. Sani and First Pioneer Properties Inc. The case is being heard in the Supreme Court of the State of New York in Kings County.

Case Background

On the 9th of October, 2007, the plaintiff started an instant action by filing a summons and verified complaint in the Kings County Clerks office. The movants joined the issue by providing a verified answer on the 26th of November, 2007. A stipulation was ordered on the 17th of March, 2008 and the plaintiff discontinued her instant action against Lal C. Sani, with prejudice. The movants are the only remaining defendants in the action.

Continue reading

by
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

by

Melissa Smith is the plaintiff in this case. The defendants of the case are the City of New York, Dag Hammarskjold Tower and the Board of Managers of Dag Hammarskjold Tower. This case is being heard in the Supreme Court of New York County.

Case Background

The plaintiff commenced this action to recover for injuries that she sustained when she tripped and fell on the west side of Second avenue between East 47th and East 46th Street in New York, New York. She states that the accident was caused by a defect in the public sidewalk. This incident occurred on the 11th of September, 2002.

Continue reading

by
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

by

The Hudson Bridge in New York was being repaired. The Bridge and Tunnel Authority, the owner of the Hudson Bridge hired a general contractor to do the repairs. The general contractor hired a subcontractor. Under the subcontract, the subcontractor was supposed to obtain insurance in behalf of the bridge owner and the general contractor. The insurance policy of the subcontractor was supposed to cover all expenses for personal injury suits that may arise from the time that the subcontractor was doing repair work under the subcontract.

On August 11, 2003, a male employee of the subcontractor slipped and fell on a makeshift inclined ramp that led from the worksite to the temporary office also at the construction site. The employee of the subcontractor sustained serious spinal injury. His slip and fall resulted in herniated discs of his cervical and lumbar spine and an impinged nerve on the spine. The employee was confined to his home for one month after the accident. He was ordered to rest in bed for five months from September 2004 until February 2004. The employee needed spinal fusion surgery to fully recover from his injuries.

He filed a damage suit under common law negligence and under labor law. He sued the owner of the Hudson Bridge and the general contractor. The man did not include in his damage suit his own employer, the subcontractor. The man claimed for lost earnings and for future loss of earnings due to the spinal injury he sustained. No notice was given by any of the parties to the insurer of the subcontractor until two years had passed from the time that the suit was filed by the employee of the subcontractor.

Continue reading

by
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

by

On August 1, 2005, a manual laborer was working on a construction site that was being operated on a military base. The objective of the construction was to renovate some military housing buildings that were run down. In order to renovate the buildings, the construction crew had to first remove all of the kitchen and bathroom appliances that were inside each of the units in the multi-unit buildings. The construction crew had a dumpster located outside of the buildings on the street that was available for them to put the debris from the renovation into. The construction team had been working in one of the buildings for several days and the manual laborer was tasked with the job of transporting the debris from inside the building out to the dumpster on the curb.

On that morning, the crew had filled one of the dumpsters and needed an additional empty one moved from farther down the street up to where the work was being done. The site supervisor instructed the laborer to get the dumpster and move it up. The dumpster was about to be moved when another construction contractor pulled a truck up in front of it. The site supervisor instructed the manual laborer to tell the driver of the truck to move the truck so that they could get to the dumpster. The laborer followed the instructions that he was given and then stepped backward away from the truck so that he could signal to the truck driver where to park. As he walked backward, he stepped on the top of a manhole cover. The cover was not properly in place and tilted up causing the man to fallinto the manhole. He sustained several severe injuries as a result of this workplace accident. He contends that he suffered from severe spinal injury as well as leg impairment.

He had to have several surgical procedures on his spine over the following year including bone grafts and fusions of his spine. He filed a personal injury lawsuit against both companies and the property owner because he contends that they were negligent in allowing the manhole cover to not be securely in place. In this case, there was no argument that the man sustained serious injury as defined by the Insurance Laws of New York. The problem for the court in this case was determining who was responsible for the spinal injury that the man had suffered that left him disabled and unable to work.

Continue reading

by
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

by

When a person is injured while on their jobs, the case is generally handled under the Worker’s Compensation Laws of the State of New York. However, under these laws, if the person is determined to have suffered from a grave brain injury, then the person is given leave to file a lawsuit against their employer, or in some cases, the property owner. In the case of people who work in the construction trade, it is important that they are given leave to pursue other avenues if they suffer from a personal injury that is severe while they are working on a job. One such incident involved a contractor who was working on a high ladder at the Park Terrace Gardens, Inc., in 2004.

He fell from the ladder and suffered from a brain injury. He contends that his brain injury was grave and so severe that he is unable to work. He filed a lawsuit against his employer and the property owner for monetary damages to help him maintain his home and family. The property owner countered his claim by stating that they did not believe that the man’s injury is grave as defined by the Worker’s Compensation laws of New York. In order to be considered a grave injury, the injury must be pervasive enough that it interferes with his ability to function on a daily basis. It must also be considered a permanent injury. The property owner contends that the injury is not permanent in nature and that there is a chance that the man will recover.

The man’s employer filed a motion to grant him summary judgment denying the claims of the property owner that they should have common-law indemnification. The court agreed and reversed the previous decision. The property owner also filed a motion for summary judgment releasing him from any liability in the lawsuit because of contractual indemnification. The property owner claims that the subcontractor who was the employer of the injured worker, had signed a contract with the property owner when he started the work on the property. He claimed that in that contract was specific wording that released him from any liability associated to any injuries incurred by any of the subcontractor’s workers. The court reviewed the copy of the contract that was provided by the property owner and agreed that the wording was specific to remove the liability from the property owner. Further, the employer moved that the evidence produced at trial by the owners of the property, demonstrated that the injured worker’s injury was not permanent. The evidence demonstrated that the brain injury was treatable and did not prevent him from conducting his daily activities. They also contend that the brain injury does not prevent this employee from becoming employed again in the future.

Continue reading

by
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

by

On June 30, 1967, a railroad worker of the Long Island Railroad, slipped while performing his job on a Long Island Railroad train. When he slipped, his legs went under the steel wheels and were amputated from his body. His wife filed suit on his behalf while he was still in the hospital, just 30 days following the double amputation of his legs. She made notice to the railroad of the suit also within 30 days of the injury. It was only then that she found out that the Long Island Railroad was part of a silent amendment. She attempted to get a response from the railroad to her personal injury claims and was summarily ignored until 10 months following the accident. At that point, they advised her that the silent amendment prohibited her from filing a personal injury lawsuit against them after eight months following the injury. The wife informed the railroad that she had made notice to them of the suit within 30 days of the injury which was well before the eight month limit.

She also challenged the eight- month limit on its legality. An eight-month limit is generally only applicable to municipalities. The Long Island Railroad is a privately owned organization and is not subject to the benefits of a municipality in her contention. Further, there was no notice that they should receive this special treatment during any type of liability suit. The wife made a motion to the court that the personal injury lawsuit should be accepted because she filed the summons and complaint within the 90 day stipulation and that the summons and complaint should constitute compliance with the statute.

The railroad disagreed. They contend that the wife did not file a notice of claim within the eight months limit. They acknowledge that she filed the summons and complaint within the 90 day limit, but maintain that the actual notice of claim was not filed until ten months after the injury and that it would not be in compliance with the statute.

Continue reading

by
Published on:
Updated:
Contact Information