New York Car Accident Lawyer Blog

Sometimes, people assume that attorneys do not need to hire attorneys. However, the truth is that attorneys in Manhattan understand that only a fool will defend themselves. Hiring an attorney to represent a person who has incurred a personal injury is the smart thing to do. Lawyers are people, too. That means that there are times when a lawyer will hire a lawyer to help them defend themselves from a situation. These situations can come in the form of automobile accidents, estate matters, real estate matters, or personal injury. There are even times when an attorney is required to hire another attorney to defend them against a criminal matter.

Recently, in 2012, a prominent attorney was called upon to defend himself from charges of DUI that stemmed from his driving in the city of Atlanta. He slid through a traffic light at three in the morning when he thought that no one was around on his way home from a meeting with state legislatures where he had consumed two glasses of wine with dinner. Although, his driving had not endangered anyone, and he had not demonstrated any level of impairment by failing to maintain his lane of traffic, the officer who stopped him asked that he perform field sobriety tests. Field sobriety tests are voluntary. However, if you choose to perform them, your demeanor and the results of the tests can be used against you in a court of law. The attorney decided that he would not participate. He refused to participate and he was arrested by the officer for DUI and taken for a mandatory test under the laws of the state. The charges were eventually dropped with the help of a DUI attorney that was hired by the arrested attorney to defend him. Even attorneys need one every now and then.

Another case in Staten Island that involved an attorney who required legal assistance from a specialist in the field, involved a case of defamation and breach of contract that was filed by an attorney in the State of New York in 2006. The complainant attorney was not getting along with the other attorneys in her firm and decided to resign. When she left the firm, several of the clients that she had been serving chose to leave that firm and maintain her as their lawyer. The controlling partner of the law firm wrote several letters to these clients encouraging them to leave her and return to his firm. The complaining lawyer, filed a lawsuit alleging that the managing partner of her previous firm had defamed her character and breached the hiring contract that she had with him. The managing partner filed a motion with the New York State Court System to grant him a motion of summary judgment dismissing her case against him for lack of evidence.

The complaining attorney stated that she had resigned because as her letter of resignation showed, she believed that she would soon be called to testify in disciplinary actions by the legal disciplinary committee against that firm for unethical conduct. The defendant law firm contends that the complainant poached clients and removed client case files without first obtaining permission from the firm. The firm claimed that they were owed legal fees from the cases and clients that chose to leave the firm and follow the complainant to her own firm. The complainant contends that the firm committed libel against her by sending letters to these clients that portrayed her as a novice with no experience. They claimed that she had not won any cases and was considered incompetent by the firm. The letters encouraged these clients to return to the firm since the complainant would not be able to properly attend to their cases. The letters claimed that she would not be able to disperse any winnings to them until the courts had sorted out the liens that his firm against her for attorney’s fees associated with the work that the firm considers to have been done by them. The letters inflated the possible monetary damages that the client should expect to receive in their cases by comparing their case to one that he claimed to have won for a large dollar amount. The letters were packed with exaggerated claims and derogatory comments toward the attorney who had parted from the firm.

The firm contends that the statements that were made in the letters should be protected by the qualified common interest privilege or by the absolute privilege that is between attorney and client. They contend that the statements in the letters were all either true or were non-actionable opinions aimed at providing legal advice. Because of this, they claim that the comments were not defamatory and the court should dismiss the suit. The complainant, maintains that the comments were defamatory because they were designed by the firm to injure her in her business and profession and that since the firm was no longer representing the clients, they could not confer attorney client privilege in their cases.

She further claims that she had a contract with the firm to provide her with a bonus each time a case was won. She stated that while the contract was not written, it was common knowledge in the firm that every attorney who won a case received a bonus. She stated that she had not received a bonus for a case that was won on her work the month after she left the firm and that she deserved a bonus for that work. The original trial court agreed with the complainant attorney. They felt that because the firm was no longer representing the clients that there was no longer an attorney client privilege to be protected in a letter that was unsolicited from the clients.

Further, the original trial court maintained that the comments in the letters were intended to cast aspersions on the conduct and reputation of the complainant attorney. As such, there was a triable issue of fact that should go before a jury because the comments were susceptible of being interpreted as defamatory. The firm maintained that they shared a common interest in the outcome of these client’s cases because they expected to share in the damages if the complainant attorney should win the cases. The law says that a qualified privilege exists when a person has an interest that is either legal, moral, or a social duty to speak if that person shares an interest in the object of conversation. The boundary in this case is if the comments were made with malice. If they are, then a common interest privilege does not exist. The original trial court determined that the comments made in this case did not qualify for a common privilege because they were clearly made with malice.

While the original trial court agreed with the complainant attorney, on appeal the firm won the argument by having the case dismissed. The Supreme Court of New York County did deny the firm’s request to dismiss the first, second, and tenth causes of action and the case was dismissed as to the contractual issue.

Continue reading "Attorney has to defend himself in Traffic Court" »

Police officers were called to the scene of a car accident at the corner of Connecticut and West Beach Streets. Two cars were involved in the mishap: a Chevrolet with damage to its front bumper and a Volkswagen with damage to its rear bumper.

The Long Island police officers asked for the licence and registration of both drivers. As the police officers were speaking with the drivers, they noticed that the driver of the Chevrolet did not smell of alcohol but his speech was slurred and he did not walk straight. The officers asked the driver of the Chevrolet to walk on a line on the side of the road but the man walked in a zigzag pattern instead.

The police officers arrested the driver of the Chevrolet and brought him to police headquarters for an alcohol breath test. AT the precinct, the breath analyzer test showed that the driver’s blood alcohol level was only 0.03. The friends of the driver who were also passengers in the car came to the police station and informed police that the driver spoke with a slight slurring and his gait was naturally uneven. They assured the police that their friend was not driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

In the meantime, the police were going to place the Chevrolet in the impounding area. The arresting officers were inspecting the car and making an inventory of the contents of the car before turning it over to the impound area. They noticed a brown envelope in the rear which they took. As they were taking it out of the car, its contents spilled onto the pavement. There was a gun and there was also a driver’s licence that had the same picture of the driver of the Chevrolet but the licence had a different name.

The police continued with the charge of driving under the influence of alcohol. The accused Manhattan driver of the Chevrolet asked the court to suppress the evidence of the gun and the driver’s licence which were found in the car. The trial court denied the motion which the driver of the Chevrolet appealed.

The Court held that there were two essential questions that had to be answered: the first is if there was probable cause to arrest the driver of the Chevrolet; the second question is whether or not the car was properly impounded.

The Court held that the Chevrolet was obstructing traffic when it was stalled in the middle of the road after it had collided with the Volkswagen which was in front of the Chevrolet. Second, the police officers directly observed the actions of the driver and concluded that the man was probably under the influence of alcohol or drugs because his speech was slurred and he could not walk a straight line. There was then probable cause for the police officers to suspect that the accused had committed a crime.

When the driver of the Chevrolet was arrested, he surrendered his keys to his passenger and friend who did not know how to drive and who did not have a driver’s licence. The police then were duty bound to remove the car from the roadway where it was obstructing traffic. They also had the obligation to make a detailed list of items found in the car. When they conducted the inventory of the contents of the car, that was when the gun and the driver’s licence were discovered.

Was the search and confiscation of the gun and the driver’s licence lawful? No, the Court held that it was a warrantless search. The car was not searched at the same time as the arrest. It was searched almost two hours after the arrest. The search was also conducted when the driver was already in custody of the police. The police raised the issue that the inventory was conducted after lawyer impounding even if the search was warrantless. The question then of whether or not the car was lawfully impounded must be determined by a jury as an issue of material fact.

Continue reading "Police officers were called to the scene of a car accident " »

A recent college graduate was sentenced for vehicular homicide last week. The man, the first in his family to graduate from college, was convicted in killing another student near the university they both attended. The young man was driving while intoxicated at the time of the accident, reports a station. The man had pled guilty to the charges against him.

The accident happened near an area not far from campus where many students hung out and went to bars. At the time of the accident it was raining and visibility was limited. The girl who was killed was walking along the side of the road at the time she was hit; the sidewalk was closed for construction. The combination of the girl being in the road, the limited visibility and the driver’s impaired condition all factored into the car accident.

The young woman was about to graduate with her bachelor’s degree and already had an internship set up in her chosen field; she was one course away from graduation. She did not die at immediately; she was sent to a nearby hospital for treatment and died later from her injuries.

The young man who was driving the vehicle remained at the scene of the crime. He called for assistance and tried to perform on site medical care to the best of his ability. A friend of the young girl who died was also hit in the incident but he survived his injuries.

The family of the victim offered no condolences for the driver. There was little sympathy offered and a call for jail time, whereas many vehicular homicide cases in the area lead to years of probation, especially when the person has no prior criminal record, explains an authority . The judge in the case listened to statements about both the driver and the victims before sentencing the young man to the maximum jail time for his crime.

It is unclear whether or not the young man will appeal the sentence or how much time he will actually spend in jail for his crime. However, any appeals in Long Island and Manhattan will be met with the residence from the victim’s family.

Continue reading "DUI Sentencing In Car Accident Case" »

A woman from Pearl River has been charged with driving under the influence of alcohol and failing to stop and report an accident. The driver was part of a car accident which involved two cars.

The 39 year old woman was arrested after fleeing the scene of the accident. She was found inside her vehicle at Cottage Lane. The car had significant damage to the front and was unable to move.

The lady is alleged to of driven her car along Route 303 in a southbound direction. When she turned into a side road the car struck another car driven by a 68 year old man. The observer indicated that nobody was seriously injured in the accident.

Although there were no serious injuries, the driver failed to stop and report the accident. Instead she decided to drive away from the scene of the accident at high speed. This is thought to be because she knew she was over the limit and wanted to avoid being charged.

The police attended the scene and quickly searched for the driver. Eye witnesses made it possible to identify the license plates of the vehicle involved. Police then searched for the driver and found her not far away. She was found sitting inside her disabled vehicle and was clearly drunk. This is frowned upon in Manhattan as well as Long Island.

The driver was not injured and so was transferred straight to Orange Town Police Headquarters. She refused to submit a sample of breath for an alcohol test. The police then charged the woman with driving while intoxicated, failing to stop after causing an accident, and also issued minor charges including crossing pavements and not wearing a seatbelt.
The investigation into the cause of the accident is still ongoing. The driver was released pending a court hearing and more evidence. Police are fortunate that this accident wasn’t any worse than it was. Fortunately everyone involved in the crash was wearing seat belts and was relatively unharmed. Simple cuts and bruises were the only injuries and nobody required hospital treatment.

Continue reading "Woman Charged with DWI after Causing Accident" »

A report states that a 2 year old toddler was involved in a serious traffic accident in the early hours of the evening. It is thought that his injuries are serious and life threatening and that he needed urgent medical attention.

The crash report explains that the toddler was said to be in a serious critical condition. The toddler was in a car with two other children when the accident occurred. It was raining quite heavily, but visibility was still reasonably good.

The driver of the car which was involved in the accident had just passed through a pedestrian crossing which had nobody on it. However, 5 meters away from the pedestrian crossing the children were attempting to cross the road.

According to the report read by the officials, the driver was not thought to be speeding or driving dangerously. He was driving at 50 km per hour and was within the normal speed limits. The driver was the only person in the car, but it is thought that he acted in the best way he could to avoid the accident. This was not a case of drunk driving as no alcohol or drugs were found.

The report also states that the children were not accompanied by any adults when attempting to cross the road. Eye witness reports state that the kids appeared from nowhere very quickly, this meant that the driver had very little time to react and respond.

The newspaper has also received character references for the driver. Everyone that knows him has said that he is a very responsible and careful driver. He has not been involved in any serious car accidents before and he feels terrible about it.

The driver is said to be a young man in his early 20's and works as a roofing contractor. He helps to look after several young relatives who live in the same house as him. Because he takes care of children the crash has affected him much more than normal

Police took the driver to the police station so that they could be interviewed. Although it is not though they did anything wrong, a certain procedure still needs to be taken.

The local crash unit is currently investigating the collision. Like any other serious crash which might happen anywhere such as Manhattan and Queens, crash investigators will spend many hours at the scene marking evidence and talking to any witnesses.

Continue reading "Toddler Involved in Crash Fights for his Life" »

An accident in Pittsburg in the early hours of Thursday morning resulted in two severely injured people and one death. One 20 year old student was fatally injured and died at the scene; two other students received injuries but did not require immediate medical attention.

A report handed to the rep by the local police department explained that the truck was driven by a 20 year old male with three more passengers. The exact cause of the crash is not known as the police investigation is still ongoing.

The driver of the truck was on the wrong side of the road which caused another driver to crash into the truck. The truck rolled on its top as a result of the impact. This killed the truck driver instantly, and the other driver and his passenger were taken immediately to Via Christi Hospital. The report read by the court states that the injuries to these were not thought to be life threatening.

Both passengers of the truck refused any medical treatment but it is not clear why they did this. Police were investigating the case and trying to look at whether or not this accident was caused by alcohol. It has been suggested that alcohol could have been involved as the truck was traveling quickly, and many students drink during the night.

The source explained how thorough police are when dealing with fatal road traffic accidents. It was not known whether any of the results of the investigation would be released into the public domain.

The student who lost his life in the accident was a sophomore studying mechanical engineering at Pittsburg State University. He was a popular student with many friends on campus. Accidents like this are common in places like Manhattan and Long Island.

It's very sad for everyone concerned that a young student has lost his life as a result of the car accident. The entire Pittsburg State University has been shocked by the fatal accident and students are able to request counseling if required. Counselors will be able to deal with concerns of the faculty and other students alike.

Continue reading "Fatal Car Accident Killed Young Student" »

Two men driving - one allegedly heading the wrong way – were left with serious injuries after they collided head-on. They were driving down the turnpike and one of the drivers was going east instead of West when they crashed. Police are investigating whether or not alcohol was involved now.

Just before 4 a.m., a 30-year-old man was driving a 1999 black Honda Accord and heading west instead of east on the eastbound side of the Turnpike when he hit a 1997 green Ford Taurus head on, which was driven by a 30-year-old man, said a policeman.

Police say the car accident happened on the very far-left eastbound lane. Luckily there were not many other cars on the road at that time of the morning.

One witness in the westbound lane was able to call 911 and both men were taken to a local hospital where medical officials said they sustained "serious injuries.”

Experts said the witness made a statement after the accident, “It was frightening to watch. You could see the man coming from the wrong way and there was just nothing you could do to stop it. I called 911. That’s all I could do.”

Both men were admitted to another hospital and are in serious but stable condition now.

The Police said the man in the wrong lane’s blood alcohol levels are being tested and haven’t been released. Initial tests point to alcohol intoxication but they are screening his blood for everything to be sure. Criminal charges are pending for now until the results come back, explained a spokesman.

Although alcohol related car accidents and fatalities in Brooklyn and Manhattan are steadily going down, experts remain concerned with these types of crashes and particularly are concerned with the more recent texting and driving related accidents.

There have always been distractions for drivers but it is getting harder and harder with all of our technology advancements. Let’s hope our young people truly understand the dangers involved.

Continue reading "Two vehicles crash seriously injures both drivers" »

A Manhattan Car Accident Firm described a severe car crash involving two vehicles Monday. One woman was killed and the other was airlifted to a special medical facility at the scene.
He went on to explain that the 32-year-old woman, who died, was driving her car and was apparently hit by a man who crossed over into her lane expectantly. The man’s car burst into flames right after he was pulled from his vehicle by passing motorists.
“He is lucky to be alive after such a severe crash,” said a policeman. “It’s one of the worst we’ve seen in a while. Witnesses at the scene said they just barely got him out in time.”
The man was airlifted to a medical center and is currently in critical condition. The 32-year old woman was rushed to a nearby hospital but was pronounced dead when she arrived there.
She left behind a husband and two children. “It’s such a shame when an accident like this happens,” said a policeman. “One minute she is driving to visit her family, and then next minute she is dead. Her children and husband are just devastated,” he continued.
It is still not known why the man driving the car might have crossed into the wrong lane and that police are hoping witnesses will come forward with information. Whether it's Manhattan or Long Island, police are cracking down on this type of crime.
He wasn’t drinking but we are concerned he might have been texting or talking on his cell phone, the NY Injury Lawyer explained. Police will be investigating that possibility this week when they sift through the evidence and try to make sense of it all.
“It only takes one second to take your eyes of the road and end up in somebody else’s lane,” said a police officer involved in the investigation. “I really hope somebody comes forward, because it is very difficult to figure out the cause in a situation like this.”

Family members of the woman who died could not be reached for comment but officials expect to catch up with them sometime after the funeral and memorial services have ended.

Continue reading "Car accident leaves one dead and one airlifted to a special medical facility" »

A man was killed after crossing a highway median and hitting another vehicle. The driver and a woman passenger in the other vehicle were taken to the hospital and treated for minor injuries, reports a New York Injury Lawyer. The driver had been drinking prior to the accident, but law enforcement officials say that was not the cause of the accident. The reason why the man crossed the median is still under investigation.
The 81-year old man was pronounced dead at the hospital. He had been driving a Chevy Blazer. The driver and the woman passenger had been driving a Chevy Suburban. The accident occurred around 9pm on a Monday. The man in the Blazer crossed the median and hit the Suburban which was headed in the opposite direction, explains a New York Injury Lawyer. It is unclear at this time if the man had been drinking or was under the influence of drugs. Further investigation is needed to determine if the man was having a medical emergency while driving or if he simply wasn't paying attention to where he was going at the time.
Luckily, no other vehicles were involved in the accident. According to a New York Car Accident Lawyer, police will probably interview witnesses to learn more about what happened right before and after the accident occurred. The man was alone in his vehicle and the driver and the woman were the only people in the other vehicle, so witnesses may include those driving near the vehicles or those driving by after the accident happened.
It is unclear if any funeral arrangements have been made for the man or where the funeral will be held. The driver and the woman passenger were released from the hospital after being treated for minor injuries. No charges have been filed against anyone involved. If the man is found negligent, files will not be filed since the man died, suggests a Lawyer. Law enforcement officials still would like to know how the accident happened for their reports. A medical examiner's report which is required everywhere including Manhattan and Nassau County will help officials determine if the man was suffering from a heart attack stroke at the time of the accident.

Continue reading "Man Killed After Hitting another Vehicle" »