Articles Posted in Brooklyn

Published on:

This action was commenced to recover for personal injuries allegedly sustained by a man as a result of a motor vehicle accident that occurred on or about October 20, 2004. On that date, the Bronx complainant man was riding his bicycle when a taxi cab owned and operated by the accused allegedly hit the rear tire of the complainant man’s bicycle.

The driver and the Brooklyn taxi company have moved for summary judgment, arguing that the accused man has not met the serious injury threshold as set forth in Insurance Law. In support thereof, the accused driver and taxi company have submitted, among other things, an affirmation of the counsel, the complainant man’s verified bill of particulars, the complainant’s deposition testimony, a report from a radiologist who reviewed an MRI examination of the man, and a report from a neurologist who conducted an independent medical examination of the complainant man.

The complainant man served a verified bill of particulars which alleged that he suffered numerous personal injuries as a result of the. The spine injury claimed by the man was to be of a permanent nature.

Continue reading

Published on:

This action was commenced by a man to recover damages for personal injuries allegedly sustained in a motor vehicle accident. He alleges that he sustained neck and back injury when the vehicle he was driving, which was stopped for a red light, was struck in the rear by a vehicle driven by a woman. More specifically, the man alleges in his bill of particulars that he suffered spinal injuries as a result of the subject accident. At a deposition conducted, he testified that he is employed as a laborer for a Bronx construction company, and that he missed 11 days of work due to his spine injuries.

The opponent woman moves for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the man is precluded by Insurance Law from recovering for non-economic loss, as he did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law. The woman’s submissions in support of the motion include copies of the pleadings; a transcript of the man’s deposition testimony; medical reports prepared by the complainant man’s treating chiropractor, and his treating neurologist; and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) reports regarding the man’s cervical and lumbar regions prepared in February 2005. Also submitted by the woman in support of the motion is a sworn medical report prepared by the orthopedic surgeon. At the woman’s request, the orthopedic surgeon conducted an examination of the man on June 28, 2006, and reviewed various medical records related to the man’s alleged spinal injuries.

The orthopedic surgeon’s report states that the man presented with complaints of chronic neck and back pain, as well as an occasional limp. The report states, in relevant part, that the man exhibited full range of motion in his cervical and lumbar regions, with no palpable muscle spasm or tightness, during the physical examination. It states that the man stood erect, with no evidence of asymmetry, and that he moved easily during the examination. The report also states that the man demonstrated full range of motion in his upper and lower extremities; that there was no evidence of muscle atrophy or compression neuropathy; and that there was no evidence of any motor or neurological dysfunction. The orthopedic surgeon opines that the man suffered cervical and spine injuries as a result of the accident, and that both conditions have resolved. He further concludes that there was no evidence that the man suffers from any ongoing orthopedic dysfunction or disability.

Continue reading

Published on:

When a vehicle has been involved in a traffic accident, it is not uncommon for issues relative to the ownership of the vehicle to play a part in the venue of the hearing. Venue is the location in which the court will conduct any hearings relative to the case at hand. In order for the court to determine an appropriate venue for a case, it generally takes several items into consideration. Most of the time, such as in criminal trials, the venue for the case is the location where the incident occurred. If a robbery happens in Brooklyn, New York, then the Superior Court of Kings County and not the Superior Court of Queens County will hear the case. However, in civil cases and Family Court, the rules about Venue are much more flexible. Rather than being relative to a particular incident location, it is generally based on the county of domicile for one or both of the participants. If the case involves a business, it is much more likely that the case will be tried in the court that is located in the county where the business maintains its main base of operations.

On October 1, 1982, a traffic accident occurred in the Village of Freeport in Nassau County. The passenger in one of the vehicles, filed a personal injury lawsuit. She named the business that the other driver worked for in her lawsuit. The truck that the man was driving was owned by a business that had their primary offices in Kings County. The business had leased the truck from a truck leasing company that operated out of Nassau County. While the case was waiting for trial, the headquarters of the company moved from Kings County to Nassau County.

Originally, the venue for the car accident case was set for Kings County where the business headquarters was located. Following the move of the business from Kings County to Nassau County, the owner filed a motion to change the venue of the case from Kings County to Nassau County. Originally, the court denied the motion. The owner of the business filed an appeal of the decision.

Continue reading

Published on:

On March 16, 2003, two cars were involved in a head-on collisionin an expressway in Brooklyn, New York. Both the drivers of the two cars claimed damages for serious spinal injuries they allegedly sustained. Both claim that they lost the function of their lumbar or cervical spine. Both claimed bulging discs at the cervical spine, herniated discs at the lumbar spine, sprain and nerve damage. The drivers sued each other as well as their insurers for damages.

Both submitted magnetic resonance imaging scans which their medical experts used as basis to find that there were degenerative changes in the cervical and lumbar spine which show herniation (swelling).

However, the medical reports issued by the examining neurologist at the time of the accident only found the two drivers to be suffering from cervical and thoracic spinal sprain and right shoulder sprain. In the weeks that followed the accident, the same attending neurologist made follow-up reports of the development of the injuries sustained by both the drivers and reported that the spinal sprains have resolved themselves. Even the sprain in the right shoulder and right arm were also resolved. This is evidence, according to the insurers, that neither driver sustained serious injury such that they can be compensated under the Insurance Law. There is no evidence that links their injuries as caused by accident.

Continue reading

Published on:

On 21 September 2003, a motor vehicle accident occurred at approximately 10:00 p.m. The victim was reportedly hit by a car while in front of 7420 13th Avenue in Brooklyn. According to the police accident report, the accident was witnessed by the husband, both of whom are listed as residing at the same address. The witness told the police officer that the driver of the vehicle and the victim were having a verbal dispute; that when the victim approached the vehicle, the driver sped away, apparently striking the victim, who fell onto the pavement and struck her head. The driver of the vehicle left the scene, but the witness reported the license plate number, V272LZ, to the police officer. The police accident report does not set forth any insurance information for the victim. Thereafter, the license plate was traced to an individual residing in Staten Island and that the vehicle is insured by an insurance company.

Beginning on or about 26 September 2003, the victim underwent medical treatment for her injuries from respondent. Respondent submitted claims to the insurance company which issued a denial on 1 December 2003, based on its investigation that the alleged driver was not involved in the loss. It is unclear whether petitioner was aware of the denial at that time. On 10 December 2003, the victim completed a “Notice of Intention to Make Claim” to the petitioner, in which she avers that her injury is not covered by insurance. She also completed an “Affidavit of No Insurance”, in which she states that she was a passenger in a vehicle insured by an insurance company; the victim swore under penalty of perjury that: on the date of the accident, she maintained no insurance which would provide coverage to her for the accident, and no person residing in her household owned an automobile or maintained such insurance.

Respondent submitted bills to petitioner totaling $4,302.79 for services. Petitioner denied the claim, since the vehicle that was reported was insured.

Continue reading

Published on:

This case involves a ruling of the Court wherein the motion to suppress the blood test of the defendant on the ground that the court order and supporting affidavit are defective was denied.

A car accident occurred in Bayvile Avenue in the Incorporated Village of Bayville between two vehicles. The responding officer, who arrived at 2:22 A.M., noticed that the defendant was the driver of the overturned car and had some facial lacerations in the vicinity of the forehead and one of his cheeks. The other car was a red car who sustained severe damages in the front and passenger side which led to the wrongful death of one of the passengers. Drivers of both passengers were transported to the community hospital. Police officer arrived at 2:55 A.M. Upon inquiry, defendant said to the Police Officer that he was originally heading westbound on Bayville Avenue.” The Police Officer then asked the defendant, “are you sure you were westbound or eastbound?” and “were you headed toward your parents’ house or away from it?” The defendant “finally said that he was heading towards his parents’ house which was eastbound”.

While talking with the Brooklyn defendant, the Police Officer noticed an odor of alcoholic beverages on defendant’s breath. He described the odor as moderate level which wasn’t overly strong but it was noticeable even the officer was two feet away during the conversation. The Police Officer told the defendant that he is being placed under arrest for suspicion of driving while intoxicated. At 3:50 A.m., the Police Officer asked the defendant to submit himself to a chemical analysis of his breath. The defendant consulted his lawyer and thereafter refused to take the test. Following the refusal, which was about 4:20 A.M., efforts were made to get a court order. At approximately 5:30 A.M., a court order had been obtained and blood was taken from the defendant at 5:50 A.M.

Continue reading

Published on:

This case is about a car accident which occurred in a slippery road due to the presence of snow and ice. Plaintiff wanted to recover damages for injuries allegedly sustained due to the negligence of the defendants when the vehicle of the latter struck her. The County Of Suffolk, Suffolk County Department of Public Works, and the Suffolk County Police Department, were also included as defendants because they failed, inter alia, to keep and maintain Vanderbilt Parkway clear and free of accumulating ice, failed to spread salt, sand or other substances; failed to inspect the roadway where water and ice would remain, and failed to warn of the condition. In addition, plaintiff alleged that defendant County of Suffolk had actual notice of the subject icy, hazardous condition and failed to timely and properly act thus breaching its duty to maintain the roadway in a reasonably safe condition.

The County of Suffolk sought summary judgment dismissing the complaint against it on the basis that the County was afforded no prior written notice of the alleged defective or dangerous roadway so as to comply with the mandates of Suffolk County Charter C8-2A as a condition precedent to this action; and that the Suffolk County Police Department owed no special duty to the plaintiffs.

The evidence indicates that at the time of the car accident there was a slippery, snowy, icy area in the vicinity of Commack Middle School on Vanderbilt Parkway. The Police Officer responding to the scene testified that prior to the accidents on Vanderbilt Parkway he called in by radio to the police department to have the County send out a truck to sand the area where the accident occurred due to the snow and ice on the roadway. A Brooklyn employee of the Suffolk County Department of Public Works Highway Engineering Division testified that she did not receive any calls concerning snow or ice conditions on Vanderbilt Parkway, and yet she said that the County trucks either plowed, sanded or salted the subject roadway on January 27, 2003 without specifying the specific time it was done, the location of the work, or how the County determined that such work was indicated.

Continue reading

Published on:

The action for damages stems from personal injuries allegedly sustained by the plaintiff as a result of an automobile accidentoccurred at westbound Jericho Turnpike approximately fifty (50) feet east of Wellington Road, in the County of Nassau, Town of North Hempstead, New York. The accident involved two vehicles, a 2004 Honda operated by plaintiff and a 2004 Jeep owned and operated by defendant.

A Lawyer said that, at the time of the accident, plaintiff’s vehicle was traveling westbound on Jericho Turnpike. Defendant’s vehicle was also traveling westbound on Jericho Turnpike. Plaintiff contends that her vehicle was stopped in traffic in the left lane on Jericho Turnpike when the defendant’s vehicle struck her from behind, pushing her car forward approximately one car length. Plaintiff further contends that, as a result of the heavy impact, her body was caused to move forward and backward in her vehicle and said impact caused her neck and back to strike the headrest and seat. As a result of the collision, plaintiff claims that she sustained the following injuries:

Posterior disc bulges at C3-C4, C-4-C-5 and C6-C7 impinging on the anterior aspect of the spinal canal; Small joint effusion of the left knee; Menisci and ligament/ right knee; Posterior disc herniations at the L5-S1 impinging on the anterior aspect of the spinal canal and abutting the nerve roots bilaterally; Decreased range of motion of the cervical and lumbar spine; Decreased range of motion of the left knee; Left knee pain/sprain; Cervicalgia; Lumbar disc herniation at L5-S1; Pain in the limbs; Neuropathy; Cervical sprain and strain; Lumbar sprain and strain; Lumbargo; Weakness in muscles.

Continue reading

Published on:

On November 6, 2009, at around 11:30am, a car had stopped at a red light at the corner of 86th Street and 7th Avenue in Brooklyn. The car had stopped for around ten seconds when it was hit from the rear end by a van owned by a private company and driven by one of its employees. As a result of the rear-end collision, the driver of the car sustained a shoulder injury which had to be surgically repaired twice.

The defendant in his deposition claimed that it was raining on that day and hour when the car accident occurred. He also claims that the car accident was not really a rear-end collision but that the van tried to swerve to avoid hitting the car in front of him. He claims to have succeeded in that only the end of the van’s bumper hit the end of the car’s bumper. The defendant also claims that the car stopped abruptly in front of him which made it impossible for him to stop in time and avoid hitting the car in front of him.

These allegations of the defendant in his examination before trial were never made part of the police report accomplished by the police officers who responded at the car accident scene. These allegations were also never contained in the report filed by the employee when he explained the accident to his employer. The car owner points out that the police report clearly showed that the van hit the car squarely in the rear.

Continue reading

Published on:

The cause of action is for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff in a motor vehicle accident that occurred in front of 980 Madison Avenue in New York County when the taxi in which she was a passenger struck another vehicle. Plaintiff’s face came into contact with the divider between the rear seat and front seat inside the vehicle.

Defendants move for the dismissal of plaintiff’s compliant on the ground that she has not sustained a serious injury as defined under Insurance Law.

A Lawyer said, that the injuries alleged to have been sustained by the plaintiff as listed in her bill of particulars, include, a two centimeter laceration below her nose which has left a permanent scar, cervical strain, upper thoracic strain, headaches, “ADHD-like symptoms; generalized anxiety disorder; depression.” In support of their motion, defendants annex a copy of plaintiff’s deposition testimony. In addition, defendants submit the affirmed report of Robert D. Goldstein, M.D., a plastic and reconstructive surgeon who examined the plaintiff Dr. Goldstein reports shows that there is a 1.5 cm transversely oriented scar in the upper lip. This scar is of good cosmetic quality and does not show any evidence of hypertrophy or keloid formation.

Continue reading

Contact Information