Articles Posted in Premises Liability

The plaintiff of the case is Scheila Germain. The defendants in the case is Rite Aid of New York, Incorporated. The case is being heard in the Supreme Court of New York located in Kings County. Judge Herbert Kramer is residing over the case.

This is a personal injury action and the defendants have moved for an order of summary judgment in the case. The defendant’s request that the complaints made against them by the defendants be dismissed. Alternatively, the defendants seek a partial summary judgment for the fact that the fall by the plaintiff caused her miscarriage.

Case Background

Continue reading

This case involves Ashton Learie versus Aliou Fall. The case is being heard in the Supreme Court of the State of New York located in New York County. Judge Kaplan is hearing the case.

The defendant in the case, Aliou Fall has motioned for a summary judgment to dismiss the complaint made against him on the grounds that the plaintiff did not sustain a “serious injury” as determined by Insurance Law.

Case Background

Continue reading

The plaintiff in this matter is Natalia Fernandez. The defendants of the case are Paradigm Management Group, LLC, et al. The case is being heard in the Supreme Court of the State of New York located in Queens County. The plaintiff is represented by Larry Hallock Esq. The defendants are represented by hardin, Kundla, McKeon & Poletto with David B. Datny, Esq. for counsel.

Case Background

This is a slip and fall case. The incident in question occurred on the 15th of May, 2009, at approximately 9:30 in the evening. The incident occurred at an event sponsored by Coors Light located at M2 Ultra Lunge, a nightclub located in Manhattan.

Continue reading

On the night of September 19, 1965, after 7:30 at night, two police officers were sent to the home of a man in Seaford, Nassau County, New York to investigate a complaint of a dog from that location, biting a neighbor. When they arrived at the house, they went to the front door and knocked to gain entry. The dog owner answered the door, but refused to open it for the police officers. He walked away from the door retreated deeper into the house.

The officers moved around to the side of the house to try to look through the windows to see what the man was doing. Then they heard him in the front yard. When they returned to the front yard, the man was standing in the front yard holding a shot gun. He directed the officers to leave his property or he would shoot them. The officers told him to calm down that they just wanted to talk to him about his dog. He threatened them again and went back into his house. This time, he turned off all of the lights in the house. The officers notified their supervisor and requested back up. Thirty police officers arrived to back up the officers on the scene.

They surrounded the house and ordered the man to come out. He refused and fired his weapon at them. The officers returned fire and the man was shot in the shoulder. He then left his house and surrendered to police. He was arrested and filed a motion to suppress evidence based on the contention that he had the right to defend his private property from trespassers and that the officers were on his property illegally. The Supreme Court reviewed the case and determined that the officers were legally on the property.

Continue reading

While plaintiff was visiting the home of defendants, defendants’ dog suddenly lunged at her and bit her on the nose. Plaintiff claims that the dog’s lower jaw entered her mouth and that the dog bit her palate; that, as a result of the attack, she sustained a deviated septum, she developed breathing problems, and she developed temporomandibular joint (hereinafter TMJ) syndrome.

Thereafter, plaintiff filed an action to recover damages for her personal injuries as a result of the dog bite incident.

A jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff and against defendants in the principal sum of $195,000 was awarded and a new trial was ordered, unless, the plaintiff consented to a reduced verdict of $60,000. Defendants moved to set aside the order which was granted by the Supreme Court; thus, the instant appeal.

Continue reading

On two separate occasions, a dog which weighs between 75 and 100 lbs., while running loose and unattended, attacked the complainant’s sixteen year old son in a menacing manner as he was riding his bicycle. The dog was barking, growling and snarling. The first incident caused the young man to fall from his bicycle and to injure his leg and knee. On the second occasion, the dog was one of a pack of three dogs which forced the young man to take a defensive action in order to protect himself from what he perceived to be an impending animal attack.

Thereafter, a special proceeding under Section 121 of the Agriculture and Markets Law was instituted. The complainant avers that the dog which is owned by the respondent, a male with the body structure of a German Shepherd-type, is a dangerous dog within the meaning of the law, and seeks to have the animal permanently confined or destroyed.

During the hearing, while there was some question as to the identification of the animal in question, it was clear to the court that the golden labrador-malemute mixed breed dog conceded to have been owned by the respondent was the animal which is the subject of the proceedings.

Continue reading

The complainant child allegedly sustained a fractured kneecap requiring open reduction and resulting in permanent disability. In a lawsuit brought on his behalf and by his mother, at the conclusion of their proof upon a trial to determine liability, the complaint was dismissed.

The accused housing authority operated the Housing Project covering 16 blocks of Brooklyn real estate. Within the space were several playgrounds, all open to the public. One of the play areas was about a half block in size. There was a fence around it, with paths leading therefrom to the street and to a basketball court. The playground was equipped with items such as a spider web, rocket, airplane and monkey bars. Children of tender years played in the unsupervised playground. Across the street was a school at which the complainant child then 12 years old was a student.

Every noon hour on nice days from the beginning of school until the day of the accident, pupils from the school went to the playground; that on each occasions an unleashed black, shaggy dog about two or two and half feet tall and belonging to one of housing authority’s employees was in the playground; that during the said period, the dog attacked and attempted to bite the child and on divers instances had chased other children, also trying to bite them. There was also proof that during the luncheon recess period of January 8, 1973 the child went from the school to the playground with his friends; that they were playing tag for about 10 minutes when the dog barked and started chasing them; that the dog chased one of the children and he jumped over a fence; that the animal attacked and chased the other child and he climbed up the monkey bars; that the dog then went towards the complainant who started to run; and that, when the dog bit the complainant child on the pant leg, he tried to break loose but fell at a point about six feet from the bars and could not get up.

Continue reading

Sometime in April of 1991, petitioner was appointed to the uniformed force of the NYPD and, during the course of her career, ascended to the rank of sergeant. She was a member of, and a contributor to, the NYPD’s pension fund until her retirement in 2010.

On 8 March 2008, petitioner was on duty at her assigned precinct. She was in the bathroom near the female supervisor’s locker room. In response to a police radio call, she exited the bathroom, tripping and falling over exposed wires that were strung across the floor of the doorway from the bathroom to the locker room. She sustained serious injuries.

Thereafter, the Medical Board found that petitioner was disabled as a result of these injuries, and recommended she be granted an ADR. The Board of Trustees adopted the Medical Board’s findings that petitioner was disabled as a result of the fall. However, the Board of Trustees determined that petitioner had not established that the fall constituted an accident for disability retirement purposes. Thus, on 9 June 2010, petitioner was retired on ODR pursuant to a six-to-six vote of the Board of Trustees (BOT). The BOT does not believe the circumstances as outlined rise to the level of an accident; there were no records available to establish the condition that the officer was unfamiliar with.

Continue reading

A man visited his friend at his house to hang out. The man brought his son with him and they were eating tacos as they watched TV. His friend had a Labrador retriever. His friend put the Labrador retriever in a cage in the kitchen whenever there were visitors because the dog barked a lot.

The first time that the man went to his friend’s house, the man put his hand next to the dog’s nose while the dog was in the cage and the dog stopped barking, The next time he went to the house, the dog was also in the cage.

On October 5, 2005, the man visited his friend for the third time and when he came in through the door, the dog was not in the cage. The dog barked at the man; the dog sniffed the man; and then the dog wagged its tail.

Continue reading

This is every mail carrier’s nightmare: to have a dog attack and bite her while delivering the mail. In June 2004, the mail carrier was doing her usual rounds and was delivering mail at the house of a couple. The couple had a family dog whom she had seen in the premises. The couple lived in the house with their married daughter and their two grandchildren by her. The mail carrier presumed that since there were children around, the couple will not keep a vicious dog.

As she was delivering the mail (putting it into the mailbox), the dog ran up to her and bit her hand and wrist. The mail carrier sustained injuryin her hand from the dog bite. She sued the couple who owned the dog for keeping a vicious dog and for their negligence in allowing their vicious dog to romp around without a muzzle and without a leash. She sued for damages to be compensated for her injury resulting from the unprovoked dog attack.

The couple filed a motion for summary judgment asking that the case for damages be dismissed. Their motion is premised on the ground that they are not liable as this is the first time that their dog has bitten anyone. They claim that since this is first dog bite they have ever known about, they cannot be made liable.

Continue reading