Suffolk County

Published on: October 30, 2012

This case is about a car accident which occurred in a slippery road

by Stephen Bilkis

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.

Published on: October 15, 2012

The owner and driver of the BMW asserts that the woman did not suffer

by Stephen Bilkis

On June 10, 2007, a woman, driving a Nissan was rear-ended by a BMW as it was stopped at the intersection of Merrick Road and East Shore Drive in Nassau. As a result of this car accident the woman sustained a spinal injury: she had swollen discs and a severe sprain of the lumbar spine. She asserts that two weeks after the accident occurred, she was ordered to rest in bed by her doctor. She was also confined to her home and could not go to work until after another four weeks.

She claims that after the car accident, she could no longer play volleyball or do gardening. She cannot stand or sit for more than thirty minutes. Fifteen months after the accident, the woman joined a local gym where her favourite workout was on the recumbent bicycle.

The defendant owner and driver of the BMW that allegedly rear-ended her Nissan filed a motion for summary judgment. He claims that the complaint should be dismissed because the woman failed to state that the spinal injury she sustained is a serious injury. She also failed to state which classification of serious injury she falls under. There are five categories of serious injury under the Insurance Law: death, dismemberment, significant disfigurement, fracture or loss of a fetus, total loss of use of a body organ, function or system.

Published on: October 8, 2012

According to the court, while a cessation of treatment is not dispositive

by Stephen Bilkis

This involves a case where the court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint for failure to prove that the latter suffered serious injury threshold requirement of Insurance Law Sec. 5102 (d).

Plaintiff alleged that a car accident occurred on September 15, 2002 at approximately 5:15 p.m. at the intersection of Carman Avenue and Choir Lane in the Town of Hempstead, Long Island. Plaintiff claimed that as a result thereof, she suffered serious injuries. At her oral examination before trial, the Plaintiff testified that she had a preexisting spinal injury to her lower back from another car accident in 1988. After being treated for the injuries from that accident, the Plaintiff continued treating with a chiropractor for occasional discomfort to her back, “as needed,” rather than having a set schedule of appointments. Following the subject accident, it was suggested by multiple doctors that the Plaintiff undergo surgery and/or physical therapy, but she declined and chose to continue seeing the chiropractor instead. The Plaintiff also declined pain medication immediately following the accident, preferring over the counter medication. But plaintiff admitted she had her first doctor visit for medical expert opinion after 18 months from the accident. Following the accident, Plaintiff testified to having trouble bending over, walking long distances, participating in her children’s activities, dancing, hiking and brushing her teeth. Plaintiff claimed that she had some occasional discomfort in her back prior to the subject accident, and that the accident exacerbated that pain into a chronic condition.

The Court held that Plaintiff’s claims that her injuries satisfy the 90/180 category of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) are unsupported and contradicted by her own testimony wherein she states that she only missed a week and a half of work and was confined to her home or bed for one week. Additionally, the Plaintiff does not provide any evidence that she was “medically” impaired from doing any daily activities as a result of this accident for 90 days within the first 180 days following the subject accident.

Published on: October 1, 2012

On this appeal the employer contends that claimant’s disability is causally

by Stephen Bilkis

Claimant, employed as a policeman by the Nassau County Police Department, was accidently shot in the abdomen on November 8, 1953 as he was removing a shotgun from a police car. Compensation in the form of reimbursement to the employer was paid for intermittent periods of lost time, and the case was closed upon finding of no further disability. On November 1, 1962 claimant was in an automobile accident while on police duty and sustained injuries to his neck and back. Compensation in the 1962 case was paid for several weeks, and the case was eventually closed pending the outcome of a third-party action which was later settled without the consent of the employer. Thereafter, claimant was relieved of all police duties and went on sick leave and performed no work thereafter.

A Lawyer said that, Dr. Masoff, claimant’s physician, reported to the employer that he had examined claimant, that claimant had pain in his right side for about four months with no relief; and that claimant had pain in his right side radiating to his lower back and down his life lower extremity, and requested authorization by the employer to hospitalize claimant for x-rays and further treatment. Upon a C–4 medical reports by Dr. Masoff filed which indicated recurrent back pain necessitating x-rays and hospitalization, the Workmen’s Compensation Board on reopened the 1953 case upon the report of changed condition and directed that the Special Fund be placed on notice.

A Nassau Personal Injury Lawyer said that, claimant was admitted to the Smithtown General Hospital and placed in pelvic traction and bed rest. After consultation with Dr. Levitan and Dr. Stein, an operative procedure was done by Dr. Levitan and Dr. Stein to probe the 1953 shotgun wound. Claimant was fitted with a Knight Spinal Brace and was discharged from the hospital on August 17, 1965.

Published on: September 26, 2012

Plaintiff commenced the action with service of a Summons

by Stephen Bilkis

The above entitled action stems from personal injuries allegedly sustained by plaintiff as a result of an automobile accident with defendant occurred on May 16, 2008, when plaintiffs’ vehicle was exiting Northern State Parkway to Route 110 in Melville, County of Suffolk, State of New York. Plaintiff was operating a 2003 Lincoln Town Car which was owned by his employer Executive Limo. Defendant was the owner and operator of a 2001 Chevrolet. It is alleged that the automobile that was being driven by plaintiff was struck in the rear by the automobile being driven by defendant. Defendant claims that the impact was heavy and caused his glasses to fly off and his body to move back and forth inside the vehicle despite the fact that he was seat belted.

A Suffolk Lawyer said that, as a result of the accident plaintiff claims that he sustained the following injuries: Sprain of the anterior cruciate ligament/left knee; Tear in the posterior horn of the medial meniscus of the left knee and may require future surgery; Acromion impingement on the supraspinatous muscle of the left shoulder which may require future surgery; Increased signal in the supraspinatous tendon consistent with tendonopathy/left shoulder; Subligamentous posterior disc herniations at C3-4, C4-5, C5-6 impinging on the anterior aspect of the spinal canal at C3-4 and C4-5 and on the anterior aspect of the spinal cord at C5-6; Subligamentous posterior disc herniations of the lumbosacral spine at L4-5 and L5-S1 impinging on the anterior aspect of the spinal canal, the neural foramina bilaterally and left nerve root at L4-5; Moderate to sever stenosis from L3-L5; Cervical, thoracic and lumbar myofascitis; Lumbar and cervical radiculitis/radiculopathy; Left bicepital tendonitis; Left shoulder derangement; Left knee derangement; Left ankle sprain/strain; Left foot contusion and left plantar fascitis; Cervical sprain/strain; Thoracic sprain/strain; Lumbar sprain/strain; Cervical acceleration/deceleration injury; Myofascitis; Bilateral ulnar motor neuropathy at elbows; Borderline left median motor neuropathy; Right, distal medial sensory neuropathy; Bilateral ulnar sensory neuropathy; Left rotator cuff sprain; Decreased range of motion of the cervical spine; Decreased range of motion of the left shoulder; Myofascitis of the cervical, thoracic and lumbar spine; Left supraspinatus tendinopathy and impingement.

Plaintiff commenced the action with service of a Summons and Verified Complaint. Defendant moves, pursuant to CPLR § 3212 and Article 51 of the Insurance Law of the State of New York, for an order granting her summary judgment on the ground that plaintiff did not sustain a “serious injury” in the subject accident as defined by New York State Insurance Law § 5102(d). Plaintiff opposes defendant’s motion.

Published on: September 24, 2012

With respect to the 90/180 claim

by Stephen Bilkis

The action for damages stems from personal injuries allegedly sustained by plaintiffs as a result of a pedestrian knockdown/automobile accident with defendants which at Albany Avenue, Amityville, County of Suffolk, State of New York. At the time of the accident, plaintiff Mariano Lopez was a pedestrian and defendant Ronnell Davis (“Davis”) was the operator of a 2009 Dodge Charger that was owned by rental a company, defendant ELRAC. Defendant Davis’ girlfriend had rented the vehicle from defendant ELRAC.

A Suffolk Lawyer said that, plaintiff alleged that at the time of the accident, he was a school security guard, and was struck by the front of defendants’ automobile when it was in the driveway in front of the school where he was working. It is alleged that defendants’ vehicle entered the school driveway to drop off a child and was unable to back out of said one-way driveway due to a school bus pulling behind it. Plaintiff contend that, when defendants’ vehicle was moving forward after being blocked by the school bus, it struck him in the area of his right knee, causing him to fall onto the hood of defendants’ vehicle. Defendant Davis argues that his vehicle never struck plaintiff and that the only contact between plaintiff and defendants’ vehicle was when plaintiff placed his hands on said vehicle to prevent defendant Davis from moving the vehicle any further.

As a result of the collision, plaintiff claims that he sustained the following injuries: Lumbar radiculopathy; Cervical radiculopathy; MRI of the lumbosacral spine reveals subligamentous posterior disc herniations at L4/L5 and at L5/S1 impinging on the anterior aspect of the spinal canal and on the neural foramina bilaterally; Right hip sprain; Right knee medial meniscus tear; Surgical recommendation for right knee arthroscopy; Lumbar spine lumbago;Lumbar spine HNP; EMG/NCV testing to the lower extremities revealed right S1 radiculopathy; MRI of the right knee revealed: synovial effusion knee joint, lateral patellar tilt and lateral patellar subluxation with patellofemoral chondromalacia spurring and narrowing lateral patellofemoral joint compartment, medial femorotibial joint compartment narrowing with chondromalacia, strain medical collateral ligament and motion artifact noted. Knee Chondromalacia; Knee internal derangement; Right joint effusion.

Published on: September 19, 2012

The above entitled action stems from personal injuries

by Stephen Bilkis

The above entitled action stems from personal injuries allegedly sustained by plaintiff as a result of which occurred.

,

On 16 May 2008, at approximately 1:20 p.m. when plaintiffs’ vehicle was exiting Northern State Parkway to Route 110 in Melville, County of Suffolk, State of New York, an automobile accidentwith defendant occurred. Plaintiff was operating a 2003 Lincoln Town Car which was owned by his employer while defendant was the owner and operator of a 2001 Chevrolet. Allegedly, the automobile that was being driven by plaintiff was struck in the rear by the automobile being driven by defendant. Defendant claims that the impact was heavy and caused his glasses to fly off and his body to move back and forth inside the vehicle despite the fact that he was seat belted. As a result of the accident, plaintiff claims that he sustained several injuries, including a spinal injury.

Published on: September 10, 2012

A woman was driving on Post Road on March 4, 1982

by Stephen Bilkis

A woman was driving on Post Road on March 4, 1982. Her car slid and skidded on the road. The driver lost control of her car and she finally stopped when her car wrapped itself around a tree on the side of the road.

The woman was unconscious. The emergency crew brought the woman to the nearest hospital and she was found to have sustained a fractured rib, a dislocated ankle and foot, cardiac and pulmonary contusions and a ruptured spleen.

The woman had to undergo several surgeries to treat her internal injuries. A graft had to be made on a vein in her broken right leg. A metal pin had to be inserted into the broken shin bone. Her spleen also had to be excised. The woman stayed in the hospital for five months. She was transferred to another hospital and stayed there for one more month. When she was discharged from the hospital after six months after the accident, the woman had to stay and recuperate in bed under the constant care of a private nurse. The woman was heavily medicated as she recovered from her relatives.

Published on: September 5, 2012

This action arises from a motor vehicle accident which occurred in the eastbound lanes

by Stephen Bilkis

This action arises from a motor vehicle accidentwhich occurred in the eastbound lanes of the Long Island Expressway, approximately 150 feet west of Powells Lane (between Exits 39 and 40) in the Village of Old Westbury County of Nassau, State of New York. The car accident involved two vehicles, a 2007 Mercedes Benz 350 Convertible owned and operated by plaintiff and a 2007 BMW owned and operated by defendant. Plaintiff commenced the action by the filing and service of a Summons and Verified Complaint.

A Lawyer said that, it is plaintiff’s contention that the car accident occurred when, while driving in “stop and go Friday afternoon traffic,” her vehicle was slowing down to stop in said traffic and was struck from behind by defendant’s vehicle. Plaintiff asserts that the impact to the rear of her vehicle was very heavy and as a result of said impact, her vehicle flew into the car in front of her vehicle. The vehicle in front of plaintiff’s vehicle then hit another vehicle that was in front of it.

Plaintiff claims that defendant was the negligent party in that he failed to maintain a safe distance behind plaintiff’s vehicle, as well as failed his duty to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances to avoid the car accident. Plaintiff additionally claims that defendant cannot come up with a non-negligent explanation for striking plaintiff’s vehicle in the rear, nor any conduct that would constitute any comparative negligence on plaintiff’s part.

Published on: August 25, 2012

Defendants Platform Taxi Service, Inc. move for an on order

by Stephen Bilkis

Defendants Platform Taxi Service, Inc. move for an on order, pursuant to CPLR 3212, dismissing the Verified Complaint of plaintiff Sheryl Azevedo, on the ground that she did not sustain a “serious injury” within the meaning of Insurance Law §5102 (d) as a result of the February 21, 2007 accident. Plaintiff alleges “serious injury” under the “significant disfigurement” category in Insurance Law §5102 (d), based upon facial scarring.

A Lawyer said that, in support of their motion, defendants submit the affirmed report of plastic surgeon Robert D. Goldstein, M.D., who examined Plaintiff, and a copy of the transcript of Plaintiff’s examination before trial. The results of Dr. Goldstein’s examination are stated in their entirety as follows: “Physical examination with specific reference to the area of scarring shows that there is no perceptible residual scarring of the upper lip. On the bridge of the nose, there is an inferior area of white hypopigmentation measuring 1.25 x 0.5 cms, and above this there is a linear scar that measures 1.4 cms. There is no disability associated with these areas of scarring.

A source in Nassau and Suffolk said that, since Dr. Goldstein does not state that the photographs accurately represent that which they purport to depict, they are inadmissible as evidence. In any event, photographs taken three years after the accident, when they are the only photographs submitted, would provide a potentially unbalanced representation of the plaintiff’s injury on the question of significant disfigurement, particularly since even temporary disfigurement may qualify as a serious injury. Indeed, Dr. Goldstein states that he reviewed copies of 3 black and white photographs from St. Vincent’s Hospital, but the contemporaneous photographs are not provided to the Court for consideration on this motion.