Articles Posted in Uncategorized

The Tower Insurance Company of New York is the plaintiffs in this case. Rose Ventures, LLC and Tremayne Lampktn and Wendalyn Lampktn are the defendants of the case. The Supreme Court of the State of New York in New York County is presiding over this case.

Plaintiff’s Argument

This is an action for declaratory judgment. The plaintiff seeks a declaration stating that it does not have the obligation to defend or indemnify the defendant Rose Ventures LLC in a trip and fall action against the company taking place in the Queens County Supreme Court and another trip and fall action taking place in Kings County Supreme Court. The plaintiff states that the motion for summary judgment should be granted because they were not notified of the accident in a timely fashion, which is a violation of the insurance policy.

Continue reading

The plaintiff in this case is Mildred Fazzolari. The defendants in this case are C E. T and Pegeen T. M. The Supreme Court of New York in Kings County is overseeing this particular matter. The main issue brought before the court in this case is whether the defendants, two family homeowners, are liable to a pedestrian who was caused to fall on a broken and protruding wire fence and raised brick that was surrounding a tree well located on the sidewalk that abuts the property that they own. The homeowners have resided in the property for sixteen years and did not repair or maintain the wire fence or bricks, which were all present when they bought the premises.

The defendants move for summary judgment dismissing the complaint made by the plaintiff Mildred Fazzolari.

Case Background

Continue reading

In this case the plaintiff and respondent is an infant, Norma Tesmer. She is represented by Monica Tesmer who is her natural guardian and parent. The defendants and appellants in the case are David Colonna and Terry A. Weese. Norma Tesmer, the plaintiff and respondent is represented by the law offices of Cellino & Barnes P.C. from Rochester. The counsel for the plaintiff is Sareer A. Fazili. The defendant is represented by the law offices of Hiscock & Barclay, LLP from Buffalo. The counsel for the defendant is Brian G. Manka. This case is being heard in the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, Fourth Department in New York. The judges present in the case are Martoche, J.P., Carni, Lindley, Centra, and Green, JJ.

Case History

The plaintiff brought forth this case against the defendants when her daughter was bitten by a dog when at the home of Terry A. Weese. The home in which this incident took place was owned by the defendant David Colonna.

Continue reading

This is an appeal case that is being heard in the Supreme Court of the State of New York in the Appellate Division of the Fourth Judicial Department. The judges that are present for this case are Martoche, J.P., Lindley, Carni, Centra, and Green, JJ.

The case involves a personal injury action against David Colonna. The original case was held in the Supreme Court of Orleans County. The order from the Supreme Court of Orleans County denied the motion of the defendant David Colonna for a summary judgment to dismiss the complaint that was made against him. The original order also approved the complaint made against Terry A. Weese for damages for injuries.

The defendant is represented by the law firm of Hiscock & Barclay, LLP from Buffalo. His counsel is Brian G. Manka. The plaintiff is represented by the law firm of Cellino & Barnes, P.C. from Rochester. The counsel for the plaintiff is Sareer A. Fazili.

Continue reading

This case is being heard in the Supreme Court of the state of New York located in New York County. The plaintiff in the case is Dolores Marsh. The defendants in the case are Judy Licht and Jerry Della Femina. The judge overseeing the case is Joan A. Madden.

The plaintiff in the case has made a motion for a leave to serve and file an amended complaint in this case to seek punitive damages. The defendants oppose this motion.

Case Background

Continue reading

This case is being heard in the Allegany County Supreme Court in the State of New York. The plaintiff in the case is Patricia O’Brien. The defendants in the case are Mark and Carol Amman. The plaintiff is represented by Ethan Lyle, Esq. The defendants are represented by Jam P. Egger, Esq. The judge overseeing the case is James E. Euken.

Allegations

The allegations that are set before the court are that the defendants own three Labrador retrievers and one of them bit the plaintiff on the 2nd of August, 2007. The plaintiff was on her early morning jog when she encountered the defendant Carol Amman walking her dogs. The defendant was on the opposite side of the street from the plaintiff, but the dogs pulled her towards the plaintiff and one of them proceeded to bite her on the right wrist. The plaintiff went to the hospital for the wound and then was later put in the hospital when the wound became infected.

Continue reading

A lady was going down the stairs from the second floor of a building to the first floor lobby in a building located at 33-02 Skillman Avenue, Long Island City, New York. When she got to the last step, her left foot landed in a crack on the last step. Her foot got twisted in the crack; she lost her balance and fell. She brought this case for damages for the injuries she sustained as a result of her slip or trip and fall. She sued the owner of the building as well as the corporation that manages the building for the owner.

After the plaintiff was deposed, the building owner and building manager both filed a motion for summary judgment asking that the court dismiss the complaint at against them.

The Court first stated that a motion for summary judgment may only be granted when there are no more issues of material fact that need to be tried. It is the party who moved for summary judgment who has the burden of showing that he is entitled to the summary judgment as a matter of law because there is enough evidence to show that there is an absence of material facts that still need to be tried.

Continue reading

In February 2011, a woman from New York initiated an action seeking damages for personal injuries allegedly sustained as a result of a dangerous condition that existed in the parking lot of the Defendant. The Plaintiff subsequently amended her summons and complaint to add a cause of action for loss of services by her husband.

The Plaintiff underwent an Examination before trial. At her deposition, the Plaintiff testified that while she was passing through in the parking lot of a mall, she was caused to trip and fall due to a defective and dangerous condition on a speed bump. The Plaintiff testified that, prior to the accident, she saw a speed bump that was broken and cracked with white paint on it. On the day of the incident, the weather conditions were dry and sunny. At the time of the accident, the Plaintiff testified that she was wearing sneakers which went up to her ankle. As she was attempting to walk over the speed bump, the Plaintiff testified that she tripped on something. She testified that her left foot got stuck, the sneaker came off, and she went “flying”, falling forward. The Plaintiff extended both her arms to break her fall and her body came into contact with the pavement of the parking lot.

After the Plaintiff fell, she testified that she went to a security guard and remained there for approximately 15 minutes. Thereafter, the security guard requested to see where the Plaintiff fell. According to the Plaintiff, when she showed the security guard the spot where she fell, he began kicking gravel into the crack that was located on the speed bump.

Continue reading

In 2008, two neighbors from Kings County New York were summoned by a pedestrian who sustained personal injury when a broken protruding pointed wire fence and a raised brick which were surrounding a tree well on the sidewalk, adjacent to the curb adjoining the homeowners’ property caused her to fall. The homeowners, in their sixteen years of owning the property, never repaired or maintained the wire fence or bricks.

Records revealed that both defendants testified that the bricks around the tree were present when they purchased the house 16 years ago and that he had performed no repairs, maintenance or modifications prior to the accident. Both also testified that they did not place this small fence around the tree and they have no idea as to who may have placed this fencing. The defendants also testified that neither of them has ever pushed that fence back to its straight position at any point. Subsequent to the accident, defendants replaced their sidewalks and also had the fence and bricks replaced.

Generally, liability for injuries sustained as a result of negligent maintenance of or the existence of dangerous and defective conditions to public sidewalks is placed on the municipality and not the abutting landowner. There are, however, circumstances under which this general rule is inapplicable and the abutting landowner will be held liable. Liability to abutting landowners will generally be imposed where the sidewalk was constructed in a special manner for the benefit of the abutting owner, where the abutting owner affirmatively caused the defect, where the abutting landowner negligently constructed or repaired the sidewalk and where a local ordinance or statute specifically charges an abutting landowner with a duty to maintain and repair the sidewalks and imposes liability for injuries resulting from the breach of that duty.

Continue reading

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the personal injury case of the plaintiff and requested the court to give summary judgment. The defendants claimed that the plaintiff was not successful in establishing the defendants’ alleged negligence. The plaintiff has opposed to the defendants’ motion for dismissal.

The plaintiff filed for a complaint against the defendants due to a trip and fall accident that happened in a local supermarket. According to the statements made by the plaintiff, she was in the supermarket when near the fresh vegetables aisle. The plaintiff was a regular customer of the supermarket. While shopping, she tripped and fell on the floor. Based on her testimony, the plaintiff identified the vegetable misting machine. The machine allegedly caused the fall because the water it sprayed had accumulated beyond the boundaries of the floor mat and spilled onto the floor. The plaintiff said that she slipped because of the water coming from the vegetable misting machine.

The court was tasked to determine if summary judgment can be granted to the defendants, which are also the representatives for the supermarket. The defendants will have to submit evidence that would prove the plaintiff wrong. The plaintiff has the burden of proof in order to have a material case against the defendant.

Continue reading