Bus Driver could be liable for short stops

Plaintiff sued MABSTOA for its driver’s negligent driving. The Bus company made a motion to have the case dismissed under the emergency doctrine.  The emergency doctrine is “(the accident) occurred due to sudden and unforeseen event not of the driver’s own making”
The driver claimed that a taxi driver cut him off by making a sudden right turn as the bus was pulling into a bus stop on Second Avenue.  The plaintiff claimed she fell after a prior sudden stop.

The Court ruled that due to the conflict in the testimony this case could not be dismissed under the emergency doctrine.

Read about this New York City bus accident case here.

Can a plaintiff supplement a notice of claim to add a new theory of liability?

Can a plaintiff supplement their Notice of Claim to add a new theory of liability?

That was the issue raised recently in the Appellate Division, Second Department.  The original Notice of Claim alleged that there was a sticky substance on the stair where plaintiff fell in defendant’s building.  After a 50H hearing the plaintiff attempted to supplement the allegations made in the original Notice of Claim by adding that defendant was negligent in not having non-skid materials on the stairs.

The Appellate Division denied the supplementation holding that “new theories of liability that cannot be fairly implied from the notice of claim” cannot be added subsequently to the notice of claim.

To read more about this New York personal injury case click here.


Bus Fall case dismissed vs LI-MTA

In this personally a injury suit handled by another law firm plaintiff’s  case was dismissed when her deposition testimony revealed she did not testify about a violent jerk or lurch causing her to fall on the bus.

Plaintiff was injured on defendants boss. The court held that “to establish a prima facie case of negligence against the common carrier for injuries sustained by passenger as a result of the movement of the vehicle, the plaintiff must establish that the movement consisted of a jerk or lurch that was, “unusual and violent.” Quoting the case of McDonald v. New York City Transit Authority, 106 A.D. 3d 1057. Accordingly plaintiffs case was dismissed for failure to allege that there was a jerk or lurch.

To read about this case click here.

NYCHAs effort to get out of Slip and Fall case denied

A person sued NYCHA after a slip and fall on dirty paper on one of the Authority’s. Judge Schmidt of Kings County Supreme Court dismissed the case against NYCHA but the Appellate Division, Second Department reinstated that case holding:
NYCHA failed to establish that it lacked constructive notice of the condition nor created that hazard. NYCHA did not submit evidence when the stairs were last cleaned and no evidence whether the stairs were inspected and cleaned that day.
The law in this area is that a defendant would have to prove that it did not create the condition nor did have constructive notice of its existence.
Read about this New York City slip and fall case.

Case versus East Meadow school district dismissed

This case of places versus East Meadow school district. The case was dismissed against the school district. The facts are: plaintiff a fifth-graders with the ring using the ring apparatus was injured. her mother started a cause of action versus the school district.
The plaintiffs expert affidavit did not show the places expert to render ball see when your court ruled that the experts affidavit failed to show special knowledge, experience, training or education. Additionally the experts opinion was speculative loser. Finally, United States consumer product safety Commission manual was merely suggestive guideline and not mandatorily to be followed accordingly the case was dismissed.

Rebutting presumption of consent to use vehicle under VTL 388(1)

Under New York State Vehicle and Traffic Law there is a presumption that the driver has the consent of the owner to drive the vehicle.  In this case the owner testified at his deposition that the driver did not have permission.  When the defendant moved to have the case dismissed the court denied the motion.  There is a line of cases holding that the testimony of the owner alleging non-permissive use is insufficient to dismiss a case under the theory of non-permissive use.  Read more about this VTL 388(1) case here.

Visit my website www.sheerinlaw.com



To read about Teachers Employment Issues click here.

NYC had notice but not enough time to repair pothole

In the instant case the plaintiff found out that a city inspector had prepared a Highway Inspection and Quality Assurance Report identifying a two-inch deep defect at the location where the plaintiff was injured.  The NYC Administrative Code sect 7-201{c}[2] provides a 15 day grace for the City to repair the condition cited.  In this case the plaintiff was injured only 8 days after the report was prepared.  The court ruled that the written acknowledge was not 15 days before the accident the action could not survive.  Read about this New York City pothole accident case.

To read about New York State Civil Service Law cases click here.

To read about Landlord Tenant Law click here.

Town May be liable for ice skaters injuries

In a case in line with our current cold spell the question is presented to the Court:

When is the operator of an ice skating rink liable for a skaters injuries?

The answer:      the issue of whether the proprietor was negligent in supervising the skaters turns on whether the proprietor had sufficient notice of the allegedly reckless conduct so as to permit it to prevent the injury through the exercise of adequate supervision (see Zambrana v City of New York, 94 NY2d 887, 888).

The Court wrote that when an ice skating accident is so sudden as to be unpredictable and unpreventable the owner will not be held liable.  Alternately, when there are skaters moving recklessly about the rink for a period of time that the owner should have had sufficient notice there will be liability.

Read about this Long Island ice skating accident case here.

To visit my website click www.sheerinlaw.com


Landlord may be liable for wet floor due to ceiling leak

When Plaintiff fell due to a water leak from her bathroom ceiling she sued her landlord.  When the landlord moved to have the case dismiss the Supreme Court, Bronx County Judge held that questions of fact to be decided by jurors existed as to whether the Landlord had notice of the condition prior to the accident.  Also issues as to the applicablility of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur exist as to whether the complained of condition was in the exclusive control of the landlord.
Read about this New York City accident case.

Read about defending Teacher disciplinary cases here.

Jurors to decide if Ford F150 suitable for posting stickers on improperly parked vehicles.

Plaintiff was assigned to drive a Ford F150 to post stickers on improperly parked vehicles.  Such was the task assigned to the lead vehicle in this government operation. After plaintiff was injured he sued and the employer, New York City moved to have the case dismissed.  Plaintiff alleged that a Ford Taurus was usually used for such purposes and the City had installed railings in other such vehicles  and that the floor of the F150 was 28 inches from the ground.  New York City said that the height of the vehicle was an inherent danger of the job additionally, the City’s argument that the height of the vehicle was so readily observable to negate the City’s liability.  The Court denied the City’s motion to dismiss the case.  Read about this New York City Accident Case.   



Kevin P. Sheerin 323 Willis Avenue Mineola, New York 11501