Articles Posted in Uncategorized

On May 31, 2011 the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York was asked to hear an appeal in reference to a dog biteincident which occurred in Ulster County in the Town of Marlborough. The facts of the case are undisputed. A child was sitting on her bike near a neighbor’s property. The neighbor owned a dog that he kept in his yard. The dog was kept in the yard by an underground electric fence system operated by a device on the dog’s collar. The system is sometimes referred to as an invisible fence.

It was October of 2008 when the dog saw the child on the bicycle. The dog ran through the fence system, jumped up on the child and bit and injured her. The child’s parents filed a law suit against the owner of the dog based on common-law negligence and strict liability.

The dog’s owners moved for a summary judgment to dismiss the complaint because they stated that they had no prior knowledge that their dog was capable of being vicious, otherwise known has having vicious propensities. The Supreme Court granted the motion. The victim and her parents appealed the decision.

Continue reading

The defendant, a wine company, has sought to dismiss a personal injury case filed by the plaintiff. The defendant has claimed that the plaintiff has no grounds or legal basis to take this case further.

The plaintiff filed for legal action against the wine company due to injury from a trip and fall incident. According to reports, the place of the alleged accident was at the cellar doors by the sidewalk. Based on the testimony of the plaintiff, he had acquired serious physical injuries because of the accident. On that day, the plaintiff had parked his car at the wine company’s parking lot at the back. The plaintiff got out of his car and headed for the direction of the store entrance to buy a bottle of wine. Before he was to arrive at the entrance, the plaintiff has to walk along a narrow passageway. It was like a narrow sidewalk built close to the side of the store building.

The plaintiff recalled that it was drizzling during that time. The plaintiff was nearing a corner when he came upon some metallic cellar doors lying by the sidewalk. As the plaintiff continued his walk towards the entrance, he tripped over the cellar doors, causing him to fall hard on the ground. According to his assessment, when the plaintiff stepped on the cellar doors, his foot got stuck between the wedges thus causing the fall. In his statements, the plaintiff claimed that the cellar doors were not stacked properly. One was higher than the other door.

Continue reading

The defendant in this case has move for a summary judgment and a dismissal of a personal injury complaint filed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has filed a cross-motion in opposition. Another co-defendant has also moved for summary judgment and dismissal. All motions were denied by the court by the reasons that follow below.

The housing authority has entered into an agreement with another company to improve the grounds on one of the agency’s housing projects. Sometime later, a concrete company enters the picture to conduct the cement or concrete work on the grounds.

The plaintiff recounts what happened on the day of her accident. The plaintiff was with her husband during that day. They were walking on the sidewalk along with a healthcare staff when her right foot got stuck in a hole located between the sidewalk flags. The plaintiff allegedly sustained injuries due to a defect on the sidewalk. The trip and fall accident happened a short distance away from the supermarket and almost 20 feet from the street curb.

Continue reading

A Turkish Proverb says, “A dog that intends to bite does not bear its teeth.” Dogs can be wonderful companions and loyal guardians. Records relayed that on occasion, however, dogs can also be vicious animals that annoy and wound men, women and children. Cases involving vicious and dangerous dogs, typically, seek one of two forms of relief. First, dog cases will seek to invoke the protection of a public statute. Second, dog cases will seek monetary damages.

Some dogs can be more vicious and dangerous than others. For example, German Shepherds are large, intelligent and strong and, if trained properly, can serve as trusted guard dogs and police dogs. Without proper training, however, German Shepherds can be vicious indeed. According to records, New York recognizes a cause of action which imposes strict liability with no proof of negligence necessary upon owners for injuries inflicted by their vicious dogs, the owners having knowledge thereof and viciousness being defined as prior bites and/or mischievous propensities.

This is the story of three dogs and their respective owners. He said that there were two curly coated Bichon Frises, a nine year old and a three year old dog. The dogs were owned by a couple and reside with them somewhere in Yonkers, New York.

Continue reading

A lady was walking on the sidewalk outside 44-04 Kissena Boulevard in Queens, New York on September 3, 2004. The sidewalk abutted the premises of a building which was leased by a bank and was managed by a building agent. The lady stepped on a plastic bag that was on the sidewalk and slipped. Her foot struck a rise on the sidewalk flagstone that was cracked and inclined slightly less than an inch. Her food jammed in the crack which resulted in her trip and fall.

The lady sued the bank for her injuries and the bank brought suit against the building agent who had a contractual obligation to indemnify the bank for any claim arising from negligence in maintaining the property.

The plaintiff was deposed and as her testimony was being taken, she was asked to identify photographs of the sidewalk and encircle where on the photographs she slipped and fell. The lady was unable to mark the exact location on the paragraphs. She was also unable to measure the height and depth of the crack or the rise in the flagstone.

Continue reading

A female nurse was working as an office manager of a health company. The health company’s office was located in a building on Lake Success, New York. The health company was the only tenant of that building. On December 21, 2000, the nurse was entering the building. She passed without incident through the first set of doors that faced the street and was crossing the vestibule to a second set of doors when her 2-inch heeled left shoed got caught on the door saddle so she suffered a trip and a fall. She claimed that the metal door saddle or threshold was uneven, cracked and raised and worn which is why she tripped on it and fell. She brought suit against the owners of the building and the owners of the building also sued the tenant, the health company which was the employer of the nurse.

In her deposition she claims to have begun working for the health company sometime in December 2000 and she has crossed the vestibule between the two doors numerous times without incident. She claims that there have been numerous complaints about the metal threshold but the Court found no evidence in the record of prior complaints about the metal threshold.

The nurse also presented a forensic engineer and accident analyst who submitted colored photos of the metal saddle. He testified that he had inspected the metal threshold on June 19, 2001 and found it defective and that the metal threshold presents a trap and a snare.

Continue reading

Bite us once, shame on the dog; bite us repeatedly, shame on us for allowing it. Well, as the saying goes. Based on a rep who happened to have followed a case, a father commenced an action on a court, individually and on behalf of his four year old daughter, seeking damages for injuries sustained by his daughter when she allegedly was attacked by a dog owned and/or harbored by the maternal grandfather of the complainant’s daughter and his lady partner. Per court record, the lawyer added, the four year old child was alone in a room with the dog, a Husky-Rottweiler mixed breed dog, when family members who were in an adjoining room heard the dog growl and heard the four year old crying. When the family members entered the room, the daughter had a gaping laceration on her nasal bridge and multiple puncture wounds on her face. Although the actual incident was without witness, the court had concluded that there was an issue of fact whether the dog inflicted the injuries sustained by the four year old daughter, particularly in view of the medical records indicating that the four year old child was treated for a dog biteas a result of the incident.

According to the report, the Supreme Court established an issue of fact whether the grandfather and his partner knew or should have known that the dog had any violent tendency. The lawyer relayed that the record established that, “a week or two” before the incident, the dog bit the hand of another grandchild. Although the bite did not require medical attention, the grandfather was informed that the dog had bitten his grandson. Another issue of fact was established by the Court with respect to the lady partner of the grandfather upon her knowledge of the past incident. The record had established that the lady partner and the grandfather resided together for 10 years, trained the dog together, shared the responsibility for taking the dog to the veterinarian, harbored the dog in their home and had equal control over the dog. Thus, it was required by the court to evaluate the credibility of the lady partner concerning her denial of knowledge of that dog bite. Moreover, the source stated that, the father’s attorney presented the written testimony of the grandfather in which he stated that it was their usual practice not to leave a four-year-old child alone in the room with the dog, and any common man would infer that the grandfather and his lady partner had knowledge of violent tendency on the part of the dog, resulting in that practice.

On a final issue established by the Supreme Court, the thing mentioned was whether the grandfather and his lady partner both were owners of the dog or whether which one of them had sole ownership of the dog. He said that, per record by the Court, although the dog was unlicensed at the time of the injury, the dog lived for nine years in the home occupied by both of them. He further added that, the grandfather took the dog to the veterinarian on occasion and the father testified at his testimony that the dog was “controlled by the grandfather”, and that “you couldn’t walk in the house unless the grandfather was is in the house…” Thus, the Supreme Court had ordered for a summary judgment for both, the grandfather and the lady partner for causing injury.

Continue reading

A police officer of the New York City Police Department was walking from the station to the parking lot adjacent to the station. The parking lot was leased by the NYPD from its owner to be used as a parking lot for police cars. On the evening of June 16, 2002, as the police officer was leaving the station to get into the police car to start his patrol shift, he tripped and fell on a pothole. He suffered a physical injury as a result of this trip and fall.

He filed a suit against the NYPD and the owner of the parking lot. He claimed indemnity for injury under Labor Law and common law negligence. He claims that the injury he suffered was due to the failure of the lot owner to maintain the parking lot in a reasonably safe condition. He claims that the parking lot owner’s negligence was a violation of General Municipal Law as well as the New York City Administrative Code.

After pre-trial and discovery, the police officer moved for a summary judgment on the issue of liability under General Municipal Law 205-e. He submitted photographs of the manhole with a growth of grass around it. He claimed that the growth of grass is evidence that the pothole has been there for a reasonably long time such that it may be inferred that the parking lot owner had constructive and actual notice of the existing dangerous condition posed by the pothole.

Continue reading

On 2004, a plaintiff was injured when she tripped and fell over a metal construction plate while walking along the roadway located at 400 East 57th Street. The Plaintiff commenced a suit for personal injuries on or about September 2005. Her verified complaint named four defendants and co-defendants in the action. These includes the City of New York (Defendant A), a major owner and operator of leading power distribution lines in New York (Defendant B), a highway/street paving contractor (Defendant C) and a masonry contractor company (Defendant D).

In May 2006, Defendant B filed a third-party complaint, impleading Defendant D and Defendant C as third-party defendants in the action. Defendant B, in its third-party complaint seeks to recover against Defendants C and D for breach of contract and negligence causes of action. Defendant B seeks an agreement not to be sued from both third-party defendants in accordance with the parties’ construction contracts.

By interim decision and order dated September 5, 2007, the court granted, without opposition, the Defendant C’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint and any cross claims dismissed against Defendant C. At that time, each party files a motion on the same issue and as part of the same process for summary judgment and part of a pre-trial process in which both parties submit briefs to the judge, arguing that no trial is needed to determine the relevant facts in the case.

Continue reading

A journeyman from a construction company had an accident that occurred at premises under construction located in New York and described as the Air Rights Garage project. The plaintiff named four groups of defendants. The accident premises were owned and being developed by Defendant A and the general contractors.

On or about April 9, 2002, Defendant B entered into an agreement with third-party plaintiff to which it agreed to provide certain work, labor, materials and services in connection with the project. Thereafter, on or about November 4, 2002, Defendant B entered into a subcontract with the plaintiff’s employer.

On the date of the accident, plaintiff was employed as a journeyman by Co-Defendant B. The employer, Co-defendant B was hired by Defendant B to erect the columns and walls of a parking garage. The Plaintiff’s job duties included helping erect the stone columns; putting said stone on a wall utilizing a crane; attaching bolts and clips to secure the above, and then finally welding the clips. The Plaintiff has a foreman and an immediate supervisor. On the date of the accident, the plaintiff was welding just below the roof level. While he was in the process of welding a clip into place he stopped welding and proceeded to go two floors below in order to make adjustments on a large generator which controlled the welding. In order to do this, plaintiff had to walk down a wooden stair case. While descending the wooden stairway leading from the top floor to the floor below, plaintiff’s right trouser leg pants was caught on a protruding nail on the right stairway post. This prevented his right foot from reaching the first tread causing plaintiff to injure himself by falling head over heels down the stairway and its immediate landing to the bottom of the stairs. He noticed the nail, after the accident and pointed it out to his immediate supervisor, who went up and hammered the said nail in.

Continue reading