Archive for the ‘Long Island personal injury’ Category

Matter of Abato v County of Nassau

Plaintiff brought about this action against the County of Nassau as the owner and operator of the Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum and Long Island Industrial Hockey League, Inc. to recover damages for personal injuries sustained at an ice hockey game. Plaintiff was knocked to the floor by other spectators trying to catch a souvenir T-shirt that was launched into the stands from the ice.

Defendants appealed from an order of the Supreme Court which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims. In order to obtain summary judgment defendants needed to establish their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. They failed to prove that the acts which allegedly caused plaintiff’s injuries were not foreseeable. The commotion following the launching of the T-shirt was a natural response of the spectators as a reaction to the action of the defendants and not an unprompted act of another spectator.

Defendants’ primary assumption was the risk defense as a matter of law. They argued that the acts that allegedly caused the plaintiff’s injuries were foreseeable consequences of attending the hockey game. Again, the defendants failed to prove their point and thus triable issues of fact remain.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirmed the order, with costs.

Read more about this personal injury case.

For other interesting information in the personal injury file go to www.negligenceatty.com.

Matter of Joseph Desena v Keyspan

In this personal injury case, defendant Keyspan Energy Delivery NYC (hereinafter Keyspan) appealed from an order of the Supreme Court denying its motion for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint from petitioner, Joseph Desena. Keyspan claimed to not be responsible for the alleged roadway defect that caused plaintiff’s injuries. In opposition, the plaintiff established that facts essential to the case existed. Keyspan’s foreman has not yet been disposed and will provide facts that could raise a triable issue of fact. Therefore the summary judgment must be denied as triable issues of fact exist.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirmed the order as appealed from and upheld the Court’s order to deny the motion for summary judgment.

Read more about this personal injury case here.

To read about Article 78 cases go to http://www.sheerinlaw.com/?id=78.

For other interesting information in the personal injury file go to www.negligenceatty.com.

This post published by Professor Mitchell Rubenstein of St John’s University School of Law appeared in his Adjunct Professor Law Blog:

Rare Personal Injury Verdict In Favor of Teacher Against Board of Education

It is very difficult for a teacher to recover for personal injuries against the Board of Education because of student violence. The Board is only liable if it assumed a “special duty.” Dinardo v. Board of Education, ___A.D.3d___(1st Dept. Dec. 23, 2008), is one of those rare cases where a special duty was found because the Board sought to protect this teacher from the student due to the previous violence inflicted by this very same student. As the court stated:

Although no express promise was made to plaintiff by any agents of the Board, there is no requirement that the promise to protect be explicit (see Bloom v City of New York, 123 AD2d 594, 595 [1986]). In this regard, we note in particular that plaintiff testified that her supervisor told her to “hang in there because something was being done to have [the student] placed or removed.” The dissent posits that plaintiff could not have been lulled into a false sense of security by being told something was being done and by the initiation of a Type 3 referral, especially since she knew it could take up to 60 days to process such a referral. The jury, however, had a rational basis for finding that plaintiff justifiably relied on the Board’s affirmative undertaking, given the assurances she received from her local administrators. For instance, plaintiff told the principal, the assistant principal and her direct supervisor that the situation was getting more impossible, that she wanted to quit, that it was getting unsafe, and that she was concerned about safety in the classroom; in response she was told that “things were being worked on, things were happening [suggesting an imminent solution], . . . and to hang in there.” In addition, while the Type 3 referral was pending, the principal intervened by writing a letter to the District 10 supervisor of special education, “urgently requesting an alternative site” for the student.

We reject the Board’s argument that plaintiff’s claim fails because it is premised on the Board’s alleged negligence in the placement and transfer of a student. This is a function carried out in accordance with educational policy, the responsibility for which lies within the professional judgment and discretion of those charged with the administration of the public schools (see e.g. Brady v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 197 AD2d 655 [1993]). The evidence demonstrates that agents of the Board began the process of transferring the offending student out of plaintiff’s class, and contrary to the Board’s contention, the gravamen of plaintiff’s negligence claim was that her supervisor and other school administrators failed to follow through with the transfer request in a timely fashion. Furthermore, the Board’s argument that it cannot be held liable because its agents had no knowledge of prior threats or violence committed by the student who attacked plaintiff, or that she feared for her safety, is belied by the evidence that the Board’s agents were aware of the student’s aggressive tendencies and that plaintiff indeed feared for her safety in the classroom.

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

January 25, 2009 in Education Law

Smith v Town of Brookhaven

This appeal was brought about by defendants, Town of Brookhaven, to review the determination denying its motion for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint. Plaintiff is pursing an action against the Town of Brookhaven to recover damages for personal injuries due to an alleged negligent design and/or construction of a roadway on which plaintiff was driving when she was in a motor vehicle accident, and the failure to post warning signs. The Court found that defendant failed to meet the initial burden of establishing entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

Accordingly, the Court affirmed the determination, with costs.

Smith v Town of Brookhaven (2008 NY Slip Op 09065)

After an accident frequently victims have a difficult time sorting out all the information that comes flying at them. In addition to sort out paperwork regarding the accident with the NYS DMV and hospitals and doctors and diagnostic and physical therapy facilities victims are inundated with inquiries from attorneys and law offices. In the midst of all this information and confusion an accident victim has to see if they can recover money to help them pay their medical bills and lost wages. \

A personal injury lawyer can assist in sorting out the mess. After meeting with a personal injury lawyer and recounting the accident and your treatment to date an attorney can begin to negotiate a settlement with an insurance carrier. Obviously, the insurance adjuster’s primary purpose is to minimize your recover and save his or her employer as much money as possible. Usually a negotiation involves a series of phone calls and letters between the attorney and the adjuster. Increasingly, adjusters are offering no money whatsoever to settle cases and a lawsuit is required. That is one of the main reasons it is important to contact a personal injury attorney promptly after an accident to prevent adjusters from stretching you out with promises and then after a significant amount of time has transpired offer you nothing to compensate you for your pain and suffering.

Having a Long Island Personal Injury attorney on your case prevents the adjusters from offering you low settlement amounts that an attorney would realize are insignificant amounts compared to the true value of your case.

If you are in an accident call us promptly to assist you in your accident case:

Toll-Free (888) 998-9984
Law Office of Kevin P. Sheerin
323 Willis Ave, Suite 1
Mineola, New York 11501

Matter of Monfort v Rockville Centre Union Free School District

In this Long Island personal injury case petitioner was running laps around the track at South Side High School in Rockville Centre during a girls’ varsity lacrosse team practice when she was allegedly “blind-sided by a flying discus”. Petitioner was seeking to impose liability on the school district based on a theory of inadequate supervision. Nassau County Supreme Court granted her petition for permission to serve a late notice upon the District in November 2007. This decision was then appealed.

The infant petitioner failed to submit an affidavit with all the facts in a timely fashion and instead only provided her attorney’s affirmation. The petition was not backed up by any testimony or evidence to prove that the District was aware of the facts of the claim within 90 days of the accident.

In petitions to serve late Notices of Claim the issues are whether the defendants were aware of the incident and whether substantial prejudiceto the defendants would result if a late notice of claim were allowed.

Accordingly, the Court ordered the judgment reversed, with costs, and denied the petition.

if you are involved in an accident contact us as soon as possible after the accident:
Toll-Free (888) 998-9984
Law Office of Kevin P. Sheerin
323 Willis Ave, Suite 1
Mineola, New York 11501

What should you do if you have an accident?

In New York State if you have an accident there are some things you are required to do:
If you are involved in a Long Island car accident you’re required to stop your vehicle and give your name, address, drivers license and insurance card to the other party.

If someone is injured you should call 911 and request the police and an ambulance to respond.

Make every effort to avoid further accidents- vehicles should be moved if they pose a threat to other motorists driving on the highway.

While waiting for the police exchange information with other drivers. Get the names and addresses of many as many witnesses as possible. Write down the details of the accident including a diagram.

Report the accident to the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles and your insurance company. If an accident involves property damage in excess of $1000 you must file a written report to the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles within 10 days. If you fail to report the accident within 10 days your license is subject to suspension.

You have the right to sue when your medical expenses and economic losses exceed 50,000 dollars and when your injuries fall into one of the no-fault exceptions -they are:
death, significant disfigurement, fractures and when you suffer other debilitating injuries.

Do not discuss how the accident happened with the other motorist.

Contact us as soon as possible after the accident:
Toll-Free (888) 998-9984
Law Office of Kevin P. Sheerin
323 Willis Ave, Suite 1
Mineola, New York 11501

Judith Desposito v City of New York

Plaintiff, Judith Desposito, brought about an action to recover damages for personal injuries from defendant, the City of New York. The jury found defendant 100% at fault for the accident and awarded the plaintiff damages in the sum of $562,000 for past pain and suffering and $395,833.33 for future pain and suffering.

The City of New York appealed this decision. The Court felt that the evidence produced by the plaintiffs at trial proved that the appellant created the roadway defect or worsened the condition by performing work on the road causing the dangerous condition responsible for the accident. Also, the jury verdict should not be dismissed with the weight of evidence produced unless the jury might not have been able to reach its verdict on any fair interpretation of the evidence. Contrary to the appellant’s argument, the award to Plaintiff Judith Desposito was not outside the realm of reasonable compensation.

Accordingly, the Court ordered the judgment affirmed, with costs.