August 2, 2015

Plaintiff Police Officer's Case Car Accident Case Will Proceed Due to Lumbar Spine Injuries

The New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department modified a trial court order that granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment and dismissed a negligence complaint in a car accident case. The First Department dismissed the claim under the 90/180 day rule but allowed the plaintiff to proceed with the "permanent consequential" and "significant" limitations claim under Insurance Law 5102 (d).

The plaintiff was involved in a car accident caused by the defendant. The plaintiff suffered a lumbar and cervical spine injury, as well as a left shoulder injury. The plaintiff filed a negligence lawsuit, seeking personal injury damages for the three injuries.

The plaintiff is a police officer. After getting hurt in the accident, she saw an orthopedic specialist. The orthopedic specialist evaluated her and saw range-of-motion issues in her lumbar spine. The plaintiff missed eight weeks of work, then returned in a limited capacity.

Article 51 of the Insurance Laws allows victims to seek compensation for personal injuries suffered in car accidents. However, the Insurance Laws have strict eligibility requirements. Either the damages must be in excess of $50,000 or the victim must have suffered a serious injury. Insurance Law 5102 (d) defines "serious injury."

A serious injury under Insurance Law 5102 (d) is: (1) death, (2) dismemberment, (3) significant disfigurement, (4) death of a fetus, (5) fracture, (6) permanent loss of use of a body part, (7) permanent limitation of a body part, (8) significant limitation of a body part or (9) non-permanent limitation of a body part that impaired the victim's ability to perform his or her daily activities during at least 90 of the 180 days following the car accident.

The 90-day claim can often be difficult to prove. Many plaintiffs fail to seek treatment in a timely period. Aside from simply showing an injury exists, though, the plaintiff needs to also show that the injury impaired him or her so much that performing normal routine tasks was not possible for at least 90 of the 180 days immediately following the accident.

Here, the plaintiff failed to prove she had suffered limitation for at least 90 days. She was able to return to work after eight weeks. There was nothing in the medical record to show the exact number of days she was impaired.

However, the plaintiff did show there was a triable issue of fact regarding her lumbar spine injury. First, the court held that the defendant had established a prima facie case of entitlement regarding the cervical spine and shoulder injuries. The defense medical expert found no issues with the cervical spine. During an examination, the plaintiff appeared to have full range of motion with no impairments. In addition, there was no medical evidence of the plaintiff being treated for a left shoulder injury. In fact, at the plaintiff's deposition, she could not even remember which shoulder was injured. She also never once mentioned a shoulder injury when the defense expert examined her.

With regards to the lumbar injury, the plaintiff had her orthopedic specialist, also her medical expert, examine her as part of the motion for summary judgment. The orthopedic specialist said he had found a limited range of motion when she first visited him after the accident. The doctor also found a limited range of motion during the summary judgment exam. Therefore, whether the plaintiff suffered a range of motion in her lumbar region was a question for the jury to decide.

The defense tried to keep out a piece of evidence, an MRI scan that the plaintiff's witness relied on. However, the court held that because the orthopedist had reviewed the MRI, described what he saw, and drew conclusions from it (that it showed bulging disks that were caused by the car accident), it was admissible medical evidence.

Thus, the First Department granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment regarding the cervical spinal injury and shoulder injury, as well as the 90-day rule. However, the case will proceed to trial on whether the lumbar injury is a permanent or significant limitation.

If you or a loved one has been injured in a car accident, contact the skilled personal injury attorneys at Gallivan & Gallivan today to discuss your potential negligence claims.

Fludd v. Pena, 122 AD3d 436 (1st Dept., Nov. 13, 2014).

August 2, 2015

Plaintiff's Spinal Injuries Found to Constitute a Significant Limitation under Insurance Law 5102 (d)

The New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department held that the plaintiff had properly raised a triable issue of fact as to whether she suffered significant and/or permanent limitations to her spine as required under the Insurance Law.

The plaintiff was injured in an auto accident due to the defendant driver's negligence. The plaintiff suffered spinal injuries and sued the defendant for personal injury damages.

Article 51 of the Insurance Law requires that in order for a plaintiff to seek damages for a car accident injury, she must prove she either sustained over $50,000 in damages or sustained a serious injury. Insurance Law 5102 (d) defines a personal injury as death, dismemberment, significant disfigurement, fracture, permanent loss of use, permanent consequential limitation, loss of a fetus, or significant limitation. Insurance Law 5102 (d) permits recovery for non-permanent injuries if the plaintiff proves that the plaintiff's ability to use the injured body part normally in her daily activities is hampered for at least 90 of the 180 days following the accident.

Here, after the plaintiff initiated the lawsuit, the defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, requesting that the court dismiss the case. The defendant argued that the plaintiff had failed to provide any evidence to meet the threshold issue of serious injury as required by Insurance Law 5102 (d).

As part of discovery, the defendant hired an orthopedic expert who examined the plaintiff. The orthopedic expert did not examine the plaintiff's medical records or MRI films. The orthopedic expert stated that the plaintiff had a full range of motion in her spine. Thus, the defendant argued that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury to her spine. In the doctor's opinion, her spine was not permanently or significantly impaired, nor was there evidence that the plaintiff's daily activities were hampered for at least 90 days due to a spinal injury.

In her opposition, the plaintiff introduced her own medical expert's report. This report stated that she suffered from objective spinal injuries and that her range of motion was limited. The report asserted that the spinal injuries were caused by the car accident. Because the opinion of the plaintiff's medical expert's conflicted with that of the defendant's medical expert, summary judgment on whether the plaintiff experienced permanent or significant limitation of her spine was not proper. There was a triable issue of fact for a jury to decide.

However, the defendants did succeed on their 90/180-day injury argument. The defendants argued in their motion for summary judgment that the plaintiff did not appear to suffer from limited use of her spine during a 90-day period following the accident. In fact, the plaintiff saw a doctor following the car accident who told her that she could return to work two weeks later, albeit in a limited duty capacity. In all, though, the plaintiff missed two months of work. Therefore, the plaintiff failed to rebut the defendant's prima facie showing that she did not suffer from the injury for 90 of the 180 days following the accident.

If you get in a car accident and are injured, see a doctor immediately following the accident. Continue to see specialists regularly and keep them updated on how you feel and your range of motion. This will help you document that you were impaired for at least 90 days.the extent of your injuries.

If you or a loved one has been injured in a car accident, contact the expert personal injury lawyers at Gallivan & Gallivan today to discuss your case.

Anderson v. Pena, 122 AD3d 484 (1st Dept., Nov. 18, 2014).

August 2, 2015

Car Accident Victim's Shoulder Injury Deemed a "Serious Injury" Under the Insurance Law

The New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department modified a trial court order in a car accident case, denying the defendant's motion for summary judgment regarding the "significant" limitation and 90/180-day injury claims.

The plaintiff was involved in a car accident and suffered injuries to his left shoulder. After the accident, the plaintiff filed a negligence lawsuit under Insurance Law 5102 (d). The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, requesting that the complaint be dismissed.

Article 51 of the Insurance Law allows plaintiffs to sue the driver-at-fault if either the damages exceed $50,000 or the plaintiff has suffered a "serious injury." The plaintiff must prove that the other driver was at fault and that the other driver's negligence caused the injuries.

Insurance Law 5102 (d) defines a serious injury as: (1) death, (2) dismemberment, (3) severe disfigurement, (4) loss of fetus, (5) fracture, (6) permanent loss of use of the body part, (7) permanent consequential limitation of the use of the body part, (8) significant limitation of the use of the body part or (9) non-permanent impairment of the use of the body part that prevents the plaintiff (in at least 90 days during the 180 days following the accident) from performing his or her daily activities.

In his motion for summary judgment, the defendant argued that the plaintiff had failed to show a "permanent consequential" or "significant limitation" or a 90/180-day injury as required by Insurance Law 5102 (d).

As part of discovery, the defendant's orthopedist expert examined the patient. The defense expert found a full range of motion and concluded there were no issues with the shoulder. The orthopedist also opined there was evidence of a pre-existing left shoulder injury that could have caused the issues, not the car accident. The orthopedist found evidence that a minor contusion was the result of the crash but believed the more serious injuries were due to the pre-existing injury. In addition, the defendant's radiologist expert conducted an MRI and found that the shoulder appeared normal.

Based on this expert testimony, the defendant argued that no permanent consequential or significant limitation of the left shoulder existed. The plaintiff opposed and submitted medical reports by his treating orthopedist. According to the reports, the orthopedist saw only a minor limitation in June 2010, the plaintiff then ceased treatment for almost 1.5 years, and then the orthopedist saw significant injury in September 2011. Because of this, the First Department held the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in his opposition. There appeared to be no permanent consequential limitation and thus that claim was dismissed.

However, there was evidence of a "significant limitation." The car accident may have aggravated his pre-existing condition and caused a significant limitation. In January 2010, right after the accident, the orthopedist found significant limitation. The orthopedist stated in the medical history that he believed the car accident caused the injury and ordered physical therapy, which helped. The plaintiff also submitted an MRI report that was taken following the accident that showed a tear caused by the accident that exacerbated his pre-existing condition. The First Department held the plaintiff had at least raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the accident aggravated his shoulder injury and caused significant limitation.

Finally, the defendant argued that the plaintiff did not suffer a 90/180-day injury. The defendant established a prima facie entitlement to summary judgment by showing that the car accident did not cause a new injury. However, in response, the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact as to whether he was impaired by an injury for at least 90 days following the accident. Plaintiff missed four months of work. He testified that his daily activities like cooking and cleaning were severely hampered. In addition, the medical reports showed he wasn't medically cleared to work until six months after the accident. As such, summary judgment was not proper on the 90/180-day issue.

If you or a loved one has been injured in an auto accident, you may have a negligence case. Call the personal injury lawyers at Gallivan & Gallivan today to discuss your potential claims.

Sutliff v. Qadar, 122 AD3d 452 (1st Dept., Nov. 13, 2014).

August 1, 2015

Plaintiff Granted Partial Summary Judgment in Labor Law 240 Case

The New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department granted partial summary judgment to the plaintiff in a ladder / elevation case under Labor Law 240.

The plaintiff was an electrician for Atlas-Acon Electric Service who was working on NBC property in New York City. The plaintiff ascended an A-frame ladder in order to replace the ballasts on 25 light fixtures. After completing his job, he began to descend the ladder. At this time, the ladder swayed, and the plaintiff fell, sustaining injuries. The plaintiff filed a personal injury lawsuit for Labor Law 240 violations.

Labor Law 240 (1) is also known as the Scaffold Law. Labor Law 240 covers protections for employees working at elevated heights. It requires employers to provide or erect scaffolding, blocks, irons, ropes, pulleys, and harnesses for employees working at elevated heights. The law was codified in order to protect employees from the increased risk of danger and injury at elevated heights. The law is specifically directed at employees working on construction or renovation sites. When an employer fails to provide or maintain any equipment as required by Labor Law 240, the employer has violated the law. A violation of Labor Law 240 is evidence of negligence if the employee falls or is otherwise injured due to lack of safety equipment.

Routine maintenance work is not covered by Labor Law 240. Thus, while a contractor installing windows on a high rise building is covered by Labor Law 240, a superintendent replacing a smoke detector battery while standing on a ladder is not.

Here, however, the NBC building was undergoing renovations, which the plaintiff's work was a part of. Therefore, because his replacement of the ballasts constituted a part of the renovation project and not routine maintenance on the facility, his accident was covered by Labor Law 240.

The parties did not dispute how the accident occurred. In addition, no evidence arose in the record that the plaintiff was a proximate cause of the fall. Therefore, the First Department granted partial summary judgment to the plaintiff electrician on the issue of liability.

This means that liability has been established for purposes of the trial. However, the plaintiff will still need to prove damages. Damages can include past and future medical expenses, past and future lost wages, and past and future pain and suffering.

Summary judgment is usually granted in whole, meaning that the entirety of the motion for summary judgment is granted. If it is the defendant's motion that is granted, the case is dismissed. If it is the plaintiff's motion that is granted, judgment is entered in favor of the plaintiff.

Here, however, the total amount of damages may be disputed. This will lead to one of two outcomes. After learning that it has been found liable by the appellate court for the accident, NBC may offer a settlement package to the plaintiff. When evaluating the value of a settlement offer, the plaintiff must consider the cost both in terms of time and money if he were to pursue trial in lieu of a settlement.

In a case in which liability is already pre-established, the jury may be more willing to award the plaintiff what he is asking for. If the plaintiff has hospital bills and employment history available, he should be able to prove his damages to the jury. An award can also be made for the plaintiff's past and future pain and suffering.

If you or a loved one has been injured in a construction accident while on the job, contact the experienced personal injury lawyers at Gallivan & Gallivan to discuss your potential Labor law 240 claim today.

Blanco v. NBC Trust No. 1996A, 122 AD3d 409 (1st Dept., Nov. 6, 2014).

August 1, 2015

New York Plaintiff Construction Worker's Case Dismissed for Alleging the Wrong Labor Law Claims

The New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department dismissed an entire personal injury case because the construction worker plaintiff failed to state any claims in his appeal under which he could be entitled to any relief.

The plaintiff was working on a construction site owned by the defendant. The plaintiff stepped on a flatbed trailer that was provided by the contractor in charge of the construction project (not the defendant). The flatbed trailer had a hole on it that the plaintiff did not see. The plaintiff's leg sunk through the hole, all of the way up to his hip, and he sustained injuries. The plaintiff filed a personal injury case, alleging a variety of Labor Law and Industrial Code claims.

The plaintiff filed suit against the owners of the property and not the contractor in charge of the construction project that had employed him. The defendant was therefore able to show it was prima facie entitled to summary judgment and therefore dismissal of the entire complaint.

In a Labor Law 200 claim, the plaintiff must prove two elements: (1) that the defendant either supervised or controlled the plaintiff's work and (2) that the defendant had notice of the defect that caused the accident. Labor Law 200 is the common law negligence statute for construction work.

Here, the defendant was a company that owned land and hired a contractor to build property on the land. The defendant was not in charge of coordinating workers, supervising their work, or paying any real attention to the daily goings on of the project, including whether there were holes on flatbed trailers. Those duties were all the responsibility of the contractor. Thus, the plaintiff's Labor Law 200 claim was dismissed.

The plaintiff also filed a claim under Labor Law 240 (1), which is known as the Scaffold Act. Labor Law 240 requires that contractors provide safety protection and equipment to construction workers who work at elevated heights on construction or renovation projects. Here, however, the plaintiff was not at an elevated height. A flatbed trailer is not the kind of elevated height contemplated by the statute. In addition, the plaintiff did not allege what kind of safety equipment could have been provided on the flatbed trailer to prevent this accident.

The plaintiff also alleged an Industrial Code 23-1.7 (b) (1) (i) violation, which covers hazardous openings at construction sites. However, this statute is meant to protect individuals from completely falling through holes. Thus, the entire body must fit through the opening. The hole in this case was only large enough for a leg. Because the plaintiff alleged the Industrial Code 23.17 violation, he also alleged a Labor Law 241 (6) violation, which requires safety equipment. Due to the dimensions of the hole, this claim was also foreclosed.

Finally, the plaintiff alleged in the appeal a violation of Industrial Code 23-9.2 (a), which covers power-operated equipment at construction sites. The flatbed trailer is not power-operated equipment. This claim is also without merit.

The plaintiff also alleged a multitude of other claims in his original complaint, but because he failed to raise them upon appeal, the First Department refused to consider them. When deciding a case on appeal, an appellate court is only required to consider the issues that were raised in the appellate briefs.

If you or a loved one has been injured in an accident at a construction site, you need the expert personal injury lawyers at Gallivan & Gallivan to review your case. Contact Gallivan & Gallivan today to discuss your potential claims.

Brown v. New York-Presbyterian HealthCare Sys., Inc., 123 AD3d 612 (1st Dept., Dec. 23, 2014).

July 30, 2015

Plaintiff Awarded Damages for Past and Future Wages in Failure to Diagnose Pneumonia Case in Bronx County

The New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department affirmed a trial court order and jury verdict that awarded the plaintiff $340,000 in future economic losses and $40,000 in past economic losses after the hospital failed to timely treat the plaintiff for pneumonia.

On the morning of January 24, 2009, the plaintiff walked into Montefiore Medical Center's emergency room with respiratory issues. However, he wasn't admitted to the hospital until twelve hours later. He was tentatively diagnosed with pneumonia pending further tests. He passed away five hours later in the early morning hours. The administrator of his estate filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against the hospital. The case went to trial, and the jury awarded the plaintiff $40,000 for past lost wages, $680,000 for future lost wages, and $0 for pain and suffering.

The plaintiff and defendant moved to set aside the verdict. The plaintiff requested that the trial court strike testimony from an expert regarding the plaintiff's cause of death and set aside the $0 pain and suffering award. The defendant requested that the trial court reduce the future lost wages to $340,000. The trial court denied the plaintiff's requests but granted the defendant's request.

The plaintiff tried to preclude testimony on the cause of death twice prior to the post-trial request. First, the plaintiff made the request via an in limine motion, which was not filed in a timely manner and therefore was denied. Second, the plaintiff repeated the request during trial, arguing that the doctor who would be testifying about the cause of death had not given a specific enough statement as required by CPLR 3101 (d).

CPLR 3101 (d) covers expert witness disclosure. The disclosure requires the name of the expert and a summary of the expert witness's expected testimony, given in reasonable detail, in order to provide the opposing party with notice and ability to prep for trial. The statement in this case stated that the doctor would testify as to contributing factors to the plaintiff's injuries.
While this statement did not specifically mention cause of death, the plaintiff did not object to the contents of the statement upon receipt. The plaintiff only objected to a lack of technical detail regarding the witness's background. The plaintiff cannot now object to the specificity of the statement.

The plaintiff also argued that the doctor's testimony about the heart attack came as a surprise at trial and should have been stricken. However, the plaintiff's own expert testified that heart attack was an expected incident following respiratory issues. Thus there was nothing prejudicial about the doctor's testimony, and the trial court was proper in refusing to strike it.

In addition, the testimony revealed that while the plaintiff was in the hospital bed, he had access to a call button for medical distress, which he did not use. He experienced no respiratory issues in the 40 minutes prior to his death. The plaintiff also had a history of cardiac issues that made him susceptible to heart attacks. Finally, the medical evidence showed he died suddenly. Thus the jury's refusal to award pain and suffering was proper.

Finally, the plaintiff argued that the award should not have been reduced to $340,000. The plaintiff argued that the plaintiff made $300 every other week. However, there was no documentary evidence such as a paystub or check to corroborate this claim. In addition, though the plaintiff raised the issue at trial, the plaintiff was not appealing the trial ruling on that issue. Thus the First Department refused to consider this argument.

Medical malpractice cases require mountains of documentary evidence and expert witness testimony. Not only must the plaintiff prove medical malpractice by utilizing medical reports, doctor testimony, and exams, but the plaintiff must also prove damages with some specificity, especially lost wages damages.

If you or a loved one has suffered an injury due to suspected medical malpractice, your first call should be to Gallivan & Gallivan.

Rivera v. Montefiore Med. Ctr., 123 AD3d 424 (1st Dept., Dec. 4, 2014).

July 30, 2015

Legalization of Marijuana in Some States Is Accompanied by Concern of Driving While High

Some states such as Colorado, Washington, and Washington, D.C. have legalized marijuana use. As such, these states have begun thinking about the possibility that their drivers may be driving under the influence of a now-legal drug. While alcohol is legal in all 50 states, driving while drunk is not. Therefore, lawmakers have begun defining intoxication / impairment thresholds for DUI liability due to marijuana use.

Lawmakers are worried that as more citizens begin consuming marijuana under lax legalization policies, more citizens will begin taking to the roads while high. Lawmakers fret that this will lead to increased traffic deaths. However, research is so far divided on whether marijuana will lead to more car accidents.

It is undisputed that some of the effects of marijuana use are a net negative for driving. Marijuana obstructs peripheral vision, slows reaction times, and hinders multitasking. Unlike alcohol, known as "liquid courage" for its ability to give drivers the power to speed and drive recklessly while under the influence, marijuana may have the opposite effect on drivers. Drivers who are high are aware they are high. They have no interest in reckless driving and instead drive very slow, avoid other cars by refusing to pass and keeping large distances between vehicles, and stop at yellow lights.

While this seems like a benefit for the streets, many individuals combine marijuana and alcohol, and when alcohol is introduced into the equation, all of the benefits of the cautious marijuana driver are wiped out. In fact, being under the influence of marijuana and alcohol leads to more reckless driving than just alcohol alone.

THC is the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana. It is the presence of THC in marijuana that creates the high and therefore places it on the DEA's controlled substances list.

Only Colorado, Washington, and Montana have set exact thresholds for marijuana use at 5 parts per billion THC. Interestingly enough, marijuana is not legalized in Montana. In addition, other states have set marijuana intoxication thresholds without defining specific levels. This makes it hard for law enforcement and prosecutors to enforce the law and keep the streets safe.

In the state of Washington, officers saw a spike of 25% in drivers under the influence of marijuana after the legalization of marijuana. However, there was no change in the number of car crashes or crash-related deaths.

Studies so far have been inconclusive about marijuana's effect on driving. Some studies show that marijuana drivers are more cautious. Other studies show that there is no increased risk of accidents or deaths with marijuana use. And other studies show a 300% increase in accidents and deaths.

In addition, the most common user group of marijuana is young men. Young men are correlated with driving recklessly and getting into car accidents. Coupling young men with marijuana can prove to be a deadly combination.

A 2012 study found that 10% of high school students smoked marijuana before getting behind the wheel of the car. The vast majority of that 10% were males. Another study conducted on random drivers by the NHTSA found that 8.6% of drivers on the road tested positive for THC. However, because THC can stay in the system for days, it is unknown what percentage of those drivers were high at the time they were tested.

In addition, like other drugs and alcohol, marijuana users can also develop a tolerance to the drug, Therefore, more seasoned users are less likely to be affected by the drug, while inexperienced users have a higher likelihood of being impaired.

Following decriminalization and/or legalization of marijuana in many states, focus has grown on the effects of legalization on the community. One study conducted by Columbia University found that marijuana use increased the risk of a fatality while driving by 80%. However, a Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation study found that marijuana users were actually less likely to be involved in a crash than sober drivers. These studies show that more research, and certainly larger scale research, is needed on the issue.

If you or a loved one has been injured in a car accident, contact the experienced personal injury lawyers at Gallivan & Gallivan today to review your potential claims.

The Associated Press, Will Traffic Deaths Rise as States Legalize Marijuana?, NY Daily News, www.nydailynews.com, Sept. 1, 2014.

July 30, 2015

NY Landlord Liable for Corroded and Dilapidated Stairs

The New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department affirmed a trial court's order denying summary judgment to a landlord sued by his renter after a nasty fall down the stairs.

The plaintiff lived in a duplex owned by the defendant landlord. A set of exterior metal stairs at the building led to the front entrance. The metal was corroded, and parts of the handrail that had corroded had been haphazardly welded back together. The plaintiff descended the stairs, gripping the handrail on his way down. A portion of the handrail that had been welded then broke off in the plaintiff's grasp, causing him to tumble down the stairs. The plaintiff sustained injuries due to the fall.

The plaintiff brought a premises liability lawsuit to recover for personal injury damages. In his complaint, the plaintiff alleged that the landlord was negligent in maintaining the stairs and handrail in a safe condition. The landlord filed a motion for summary judgment, requesting that the complaint be dismissed.

The defendant made three arguments in his motion for summary judgment: (1) the defendant had maintained the duplex "in a reasonably safe condition," (2) the plaintiff's expert had improperly relied on photos of the stairs when declaring that the stairs were dangerous, and (3) the defendant was not negligent in allowing the corrosion.

Regarding the first argument, the trial court held that the defendant had established a prima facie case that the duplex was in a reasonably safe condition, and the Fourth Department agreed. However, the plaintiff is permitted an opportunity to respond to a defense motion for summary judgment. When the defendant has failed to establish a prima facie entitlement to summary judgment, the plaintiff's oppositional arguments are not even necessary. However, here, because the defendant did establish this prima facie entitlement, the court then evaluated the plaintiff's counterarguments.

The plaintiff submitted an affidavit of an expert witness that stated the witness had inspected the railing and that it was the opinion of that witness that the railing had been corroded for a while. The expert stated that corrosion was dangerous and that it was the corrosion that had caused the fall. This created a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the corrosion had caused the fall. Thus, it was for a jury to decide at trial, not the judge.

Regarding the second argument, the defendant argued that the photos of the railing that the expert relied on were not authenticated. Photos submitted into evidence must be authenticated in order to be relied on. This means that there needs to be proof of what the photo is of and when it was taken. Here, however, the record established that the photos were of the exact railing. In addition, the record established by way of date stamp on the photos and testimony by multiple witnesses, including the defendant himself, that the photos were taken right after the fall. The witnesses also stated that the photos accurately depicted the railing as it was at the time of the fall. Thus, the defendant failed on this argument.

Regarding the final argument, the defendant argued that he was not required to prevent railings from corroding. On the contrary, though, the Building Code and Property Maintenance Code of New York State both require landlords to coat railings, stairs, and other exterior metal surfaces with a corrosion inhibitor. Landlords are also required by the law to fix any pre-existing corrosion. When a landlord has violated the Building Code, this is evidence of negligence. Thus, the defendant also failed on this argument.

As such, the defendant's motion for summary judgment was properly denied, and the case will proceed to trial.

If you or a loved one has been injured in an accident either on your rental property or someone else's property, you may have a premises liability claim. Contact the experienced personal injury attorneys at Gallivan & Gallivan today to discuss your potential claims.

Morreale v. Froelich, 35 CA 14-01219 (4th Dept., Feb. 6, 2015).

July 29, 2015

Department of Education and Hospital Not Liable for Plaintiff's Stroke

The New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department affirmed a trial court's order that granted the Department of Education and hospital's motion for summary judgment in a combined negligence and medical malpractice case.

The plaintiff was an 8-year-old child who attended a public school operated by the Department of Education. While playing on the playground, the plaintiff began to suffer a stroke. Several DOE staff were present on the playground at the time. The plaintiff began to fall, and one staff member scooped her up and caught her mid-fall. The child couldn't stand or move her legs, so the staff member called 911.

EMS took the child to Jacobi Hospital where she was eventually diagnosed with an acute ischemic stroke. She received a CT scan and was later released.

The plaintiff filed a complaint against the DOE and hospital, alleging negligence on behalf of the DOE and medical malpractice on behalf of the hospital. The plaintiff alleged that the DOE worsened the plaintiff's stroke. The plaintiff alleged the hospital was negligent in delaying the CT scan and not administering TPA, a medical treatment designed to dissolve blood clots.

Both defendants filed motions for summary judgment after discovery was completed. The trial court granted both motions and dismissed the complaint.

Regarding the DOE's motion for summary judgment, the DOE argued it did not worsen the plaintiff's condition. New York requires that schools and camps adequately supervise children in their care. Schools and camps will be liable for injuries that occur due to inadequate supervision if those injuries are foreseeable. The stroke here was not foreseeable and was not caused by a lack of supervision. In addition, there were multiple staff members present on the playground at the time of the stroke. One staff member even helped prevent further injury by catching the plaintiff as she fell. Finally, the staff member assessed the plaintiff 's medical condition and called 911. The DOE therefore established a prima facie entitlement to summary judgment. The plaintiff had no arguments on opposition to rebut this.

Regarding the hospital's motion for summary judgment, the hospital argued that its doctors acted using acceptable and reasonable medical practices under the circumstances. TPA has not yet been tested on children and is therefore not approved for use with children. If the doctors had administered TPA to the child, this would have been an unsafe risk that constituted a departure from accepted medical practices. The doctors therefore were not negligent in failing to administer TPA.

To support this argument, the hospital submitted the affidavit of an expert medical witness who stated that TPA was unsafe for children. The plaintiff responded in her opposition with a medical expert of her own whose opinion in fact mirrored that of the defense expert. Also in her opposition, the plaintiff tried to raise a new theory of liability - namely that the doctors should have administered Heparin, an anticoagulant.

Because both experts agreed on the TPA, there was no triable issue of fact regarding TPA. Thus summary judgment was proper on this claim. In addition, the First Department held it would not consider the plaintiff's Heparin argument because it was not raised until after discovery while the case was pending trial. Had this argument been allowed, the hospital would have been prejudiced due to a lack of time and ability to investigate the argument further.

If a medical expert tries to argue that a less-common medical procedure or prescription should have been used by the doctors when treating the incident, the parties usually must have a special hearing called a Frye hearing. During the Frye hearing, the court will hear arguments from experts on both sides, as well as review evidence such as medical literature, to determine if the less common medical procedure or prescription can be treated as the necessary standard of care for purposes of trial. The party wishing to use that medical evidence must show it is viewed as reliable in the medical community.

If you or a loved one has suffered personal injury damages due to medical malpractice, you have legal options. Contact the medical malpractice and personal injury attorneys at Gallivan & Gallivan today to discuss your potential claims.

Resources:

Keilany B. v. City of New York, 122 AD3d 424 (1st Dept., Nov. 6, 2014).

July 29, 2015

Dentist's Office Sued for Performing Unnecessary Dental Treatment on Child

The New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department affirmed a trial court order that denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment in a case involving fraud, negligence, and battery at a dentist's office.

The defendant is a company that owns Small Smiles, a dentist's office in Albany, New York. The plaintiff is a small child who underwent unnecessary dental treatment without her consent. The plaintiff sued for battery, a violation of General Business Law 349, negligence via dental malpractice, and concerted action. In addition to personal injury damages, the plaintiff also requested punitive damages.

The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law as to all claims. Regarding the battery claim, the defendant argued that the battery claim was precluded by the dental malpractice claim. However, the Fourth Department disagreed. Battery during medical procedures requires either no consent or fraudulently induced consent. When consent is fraudulently induced, the defendant lies to the plaintiff in order to obtain consent, and that consent is only given because of the lies and false promises.

Battery and dental malpractice are not the same. If a dentist performs a procedure with no consent, the dentist has intentionally wronged the patient. This is not a negligent action. Performing any treatment without consent is therefore battery. Battery requires that the plaintiff prove offensive bodily contact. Lack of consent renders contact offensive. The defendant failed to show how the plaintiff had not raised a claim for battery, and the Fourth Department rejected this argument. Summary judgment was properly denied as to the battery claim.

Regarding the General Business Law 349 claim, this law covers deceptive business practices. The business practices must be directed at consumers, must be deceptive, and must injure someone. The dentist's office argued that General Business Law 349 did not apply. The defendant argued the treatment was a private matter, not something directed at the public. However, the Fourth Department did not believe the nature of the treatment was relevant for General Business Law 349. Rather, the Fourth Department found that the plaintiff, in her complaint, sufficiently alleged that the defendants had placed profits over patient care. This scheme then affected the public at large, which went beyond what had happened in the dentist's office between the plaintiff and dentist. Thus the defendant failed to show how the plaintiff had not raised a claim under General Business Law 349, and as such, summary judgment was properly denied.

Regarding the negligence claim, the defendant argued that the plaintiff had failed to prove the cause of her injuries. However, similar to the General Business Law 349 claim, the Fourth Department held that the plaintiff met her initial burden by showing there may have been a scheme that placed profits over patient care, which may have in turn resulted in negligent conduct that caused the injuries. As such, the defendant failed to show how it was entitled to judgment under this claim, and summary judgment was therefore properly denied.

Finally, the defendant requested that the court strike the request for punitive damages. A plaintiff can request punitive damages on top of actual personal injury damages. Punitive damages are intended to punish the defendant and prevent future similar wrongdoing. Punitive damages may be proper in a case that involves intentional wrongdoing, such as battery. The defendant argued that it had filed for bankruptcy, and as a part of its bankruptcy plan with its creditors, it had stipulated that any damages paid to the plaintiff would be covered by insurance. Insurance providers, however, will not cover punitive damages. The civil court is not bound by the bankruptcy plan. As such, the Fourth Department refused to honor this stipulation.

If you or a loved one has been injured at the hands of a doctor or nurse, you may have a medical malpractice claim. Contact the skilled medical malpractice attorneys at Gallivan & Gallivan today to review your case.

Resources:

Matter of Small Smiles Litig., 125 AD3d 1287 (4th Dept., Feb. 6, 2015).

July 27, 2015

First Department Affirms Liability Finding for Hit-and-Run Pedestrian Accident

The New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department affirmed a trial court order that granted partial summary judgment for the plaintiff on liability, holding that the defendant driver was negligent when he hit the pedestrian in the crosswalk.

The plaintiff was crossing the street when he was hit by the defendant's car. Prior to being hit, he was on the crosswalk, had already crossed two traffic lanes, and had the light. The defendant was speeding and made a quick right turn when he collided with the pedestrian. The plaintiff was knocked to the ground. When the plaintiff got up to get help, the defendant then drove off but was later caught. The plaintiff filed a negligence lawsuit for personal injury damages. The plaintiff also filed a motion for partial summary judgment.

In his motion for partial summary judgment, the plaintiff alleged that he had established a prima facie case of negligence based on the facts. The defendant opposed the motion and argued that the plaintiff had contributed to the accident with his own negligence. The defendant argued that the plaintiff did not look both ways before beginning to cross.

However, according to the defendant's deposition, the defendant was unable to remember anything about the accident, including whether the plaintiff had acted negligently in any way. Thus the allegations that the plaintiff had contributed to the accident or had failed to look both ways was based purely on speculation. Evidence, not mere speculation, is required through documentation or testimony to show contributory negligence.

The plaintiff also requested that punitive damages be assessed against the defendant. Punitive damages are used rarely in civil cases. They are designed to punish the defendant for his wrongdoing. The reasoning behind punitive damages is that the defendant will pay the price for wronging society and will learn to correct his action in the future.

However, punitive damages are usually only permitted in lawsuits that involve intentional wrongdoing. Car accidents involving negligence are not intentional. The driver did not intend to hit the plaintiff. Therefore, punitive damages were not appropriate in this case. The plaintiff argued that the defendant had intended to flee the scene. While this is true, the plaintiff did not appear to be in any more real danger at that point as he had gotten up off of the ground and had begun walking.

The First Department therefore denied the request for punitive damages but partially granted the motion for summary judgment by assessing liability against the defendant driver.

This means that negligence has been established, and the defendant has been found liable for the car accident. Now the parties will need to present the damages part of their cases. Damages are often a hotly contested issue in trial. A defense attorney may be willing to concede that his defense to a negligence claim is fairly weak but may believe that the plaintiff has severely over-inflated the damages request in the complaint. That defense attorney may therefore focus closely on proving that the plaintiff's medical expenses, loss of quality of life, or lost wages are much lower than the plaintiff calculated.

When a court finds partial summary judgment for the plaintiff by assessing liability against the defendant, the likelihood of a settlement offer from the defendant's car insurance company increases. Car insurance companies usually offer settlement amounts to plaintiffs in the beginning of litigation in order to reduce the burden of costly and timely litigation. However, depending on how weak the car insurance company assesses the plaintiff's case to be, the settlement offer could be fairly minimal.

With a liability assessment in this case, the car insurance company is likely to offer a higher settlement amount. This offer will be less than the requested damages because it takes into account the amount of money saved by the parties by avoiding trial.

However, a liability assessment may also be a green light for a plaintiff to pursue a trial if he has a way of proving his damages. The plaintiff may also be awarded attorneys' fees as part of the damages calculation.

If you or a loved one has been injured in an automobile accident, contact the skilled personal injury lawyers at Gallivan & Gallivan to review your negligence claim today.

Resources:

Coutu v. Santo Domingo, 123 AD3d 410 (1st Dept. 2014).

July 27, 2015

Drunk Driving at All-Time Low, Driving while on Drugs at All-Time High

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has worked tirelessly to increase awareness of the dangers of drunk driving in an effort to stamp out driving while intoxicated. While surveys show that drunk driving has declined and is at an all-time low, driving while under the influence of marijuana or prescription drugs has increased dramatically.

The NHTSA in its Roadside Survey of Alcohol and Drug Use by Drivers discovered that drunk driving has dropped by 33% in the past 8 years. This is an astonishing drop of 75% in the past 40 years. With that said, drivers are now increasingly driving under the influence of something else - drugs. The survey found that 25% of drivers tested positive for at least one dangerous drug.

While the NHTSA is celebrating its accomplishment regarding drunk driving, it is simultaneously buckling down to explore ideas on how to crack down on driving while under the influence of marijuana or prescription drugs. The NHTSA has been working with researchers, the police, and policy organizations to examine current policies and tweak them to deal with this new issue. The goal is to save lives and reduce car accidents.

The NHTSA has also conducted the National Roadside Survey. The survey has only been completed 5 times over the last four decades. Drivers nation-wide can opt to participate in the fully anonymous survey. In cities that the NHTSA conducts the survey, the NHTSA installs signs on major highways and streets, advertising the location of the voluntary survey. Drivers can then decide to drive to the site and volunteer to answer questions for the survey.

Though the survey is anonymous, many drivers are worried about admitting to illegal activity in the survey. As such, the NHTSA has worked with law enforcement to ensure that the drivers have complete privacy and can feel free to say anything without fear of repercussion.

According to the survey, only 8% of drivers admitted to driving on weekends with alcohol in their system. Only 1% of these drivers were found to have a blood alcohol level higher than the legal limit in their state. This represents a drop of 30% from the 2007 survey and a drop of 80% from the 1973 survey, the first year the survey was conducted.

However, alcohol is not the only substance that can alter one's ability to think, see clearly, and react quickly. The use of illegal drugs is skyrocketing. For instance, more drivers are found to have illegal drugs in their system than alcohol. 20% of weekend nighttime drivers had illegal drugs in their system. This was an increase of 4% from 2007. Marijuana represents the vast majority of these illegal drugs, clocking in at 50%.

Another survey focused specifically on marijuana found that marijuana smokers are more likely to get into accidents. Correlation, however, is not causation. Young men in general are at the highest risk of getting into accidents, and the study found that drivers under the influence of marijuana were usually young men and were usually driving with large numbers of young men. This may have contributed to the high number of car crashes.

While some individuals have claimed that marijuana use does not affect their ability to drive, many studies have been conducted involving driving simulators and test tracks. With driving simulators, a volunteer simulates driving a car, similar to an arcade game. The simulator can change the screen that shows the path the car is driving by simulating what a driver would see if high or drunk. The simulator can also slow down the game to simulate the slowed reaction times. With a test track, drivers are given marijuana at varying levels and asked to do things such as drive in a straight line, brake properly, park the car, and swerve around cones. Both types of studies have found that marijuana use significantly impairs drivers.

The NHTSA has plans to do a wide variety of other studies to further examine the effects and prevalence of using drugs while driving.

If you or a loved one has been injured in a car accident, contact the expert personal injury attorneys at Gallivan & Gallivan today to review your claims.

Resources:

Gordon Trowbridge, NHTSA Releases Two New Studies on Impaired Driving on U.S. Roads, NHTSA (Feb. 6, 2015).

July 26, 2015

Department of Transportation Working to Improve Safety and Reduce Traffic Congestion in New York City

One of the busiest cities in the world, New York City has long been known for its horrendous traffic and subsequently, car accidents. 3.49 individuals are killed by cars in New York City per every 100,000 residents. This ranks New York City as the twelfth most dangerous city in the world for car accidents. In comparison, large cities like London, Paris, Tokyo, and Hong Kong are all ranked below New York City.

To combat the death rates and increase vehicle occupant and pedestrian safety in the city, the New York City Department of Transportation (DOT) launched the Sustainable Streets plan in early 2008. In conjunction with the Mayor's office, the DOT detailed a new transportation policy for the city.

The initial goals of Sustainable Streets were numerous. Decreasing traffic fatalities was the number one goal. However, other goals included addressing city-wide parking issues, encouraging bicycle use, and developing a car sharing fleet for DOT employees.
In the plan, the DOT pledged to follow through with 164 specific actions. Many of these actions involved implementing smaller scale plans. For instance:

• The DOT focused on increasing safety for two vulnerable populations - seniors and children - by launching Safe Streets for Seniors and Safe Routes to Schools.
• In order to improve safety and reduce congestion in more heavily trafficked areas like Times Square, the DOT launched the Green Light for Midtown plan.
• The DOT also worked in conjunction with NYC Transit to increase bus routes.
• To encourage biking and reduce car congestion, the DOT installed 90 miles of bike lanes, which resulted in a 35% increase in biking in 2008.
• To make popular streets like Park Avenue more accessible to pedestrians, the DOT launched the Summer Streets program, which shuts down 7 miles of streets on Saturdays in August.
• The DOT also re-designed certain intersections and roadways to decrease congestion and increase safety by adding lanes, changing traffic light times, and adding medians for pedestrians.
• The DOT redesigned public spaces in high-traffic areas to assist pedestrians and provide more room and safety for them. Some popular areas include Madison Square and the Manhattan Bridge.
• In order to reduce the number of DOT fleet cars on the street, the DOT cut parking privileges for 20% of its cars and reduced its fleet by 10% by promoting car sharing.
• The DOT also worked on creating clearer lines of communication with the government and the public through a redesign of its website and the implementation of various outreach programs like its DOT Academy.

After a successful year in 2009 that saw a 35% reduction in traffic fatalities in New York City, the DOT began implementing new goals for its Sustainable Streets plan. Some of these new goals include: increasing reduced speed school zones in the city, implementing real-time bus tracking for NYC Transit buses, helping NYC City Council pass bicycle and bicycle parking legislation designed to promote bicycle commuting, expanding the ferry network with new docks, expanding the Summer Streets street closure program to additional streets and dates, and providing real-time information on traffic speeds, traffic conditions, and accidents on its website.

The New York City DOT recognizes that transportation in a busy city like New York City involves coordinating the interests of drivers, public transit commuters, bicycle commuters, and pedestrians. The DOT is working hard to improve services for all individuals who travel through the city in order to increase the flow of traffic during rush hour, protect individuals crossing the street on foot, and encourage more environmentally friendly ways of commuting like bicycling to work. The DOT is committed to working alongside community leaders, government agencies, and other private entities in order to provide greater access to services.

If you or a loved one has been involved in a car accident, contact a skilled personal injury lawyer at Gallivan & Gallivan today to discuss your potential claims.

Resources:

Sustainable Streets, New York City Department of Transportation, http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/about/stratplan.shtml.

July 26, 2015

Department of Transportation Study Reveals New York City Pedestrian Fatalities Have Dropped in the Past Decade

In 2009, less than 300 pedestrians were killed in car crashes in New York City. Though this figure seems alarming, this marks a 25% decrease in the past decade. In fact, 2009 was the safest year for pedestrians in New York City. Thanks to New York City DOT initiatives designed at increasing pedestrian safety, New York City's pedestrian fatality rate has dropped to only 25% of the national fatality rate and only 50% of the 10 largest cities in the U.S.

Due to their vulnerable position, pedestrians are 10 times more likely to die in a crash than the occupants in the car. Overall, 52% of all car accident-related deaths in the country involved pedestrians. The most common reason for pedestrian fatalities is speeding. In fact, most drivers do not know that the speed limit is only 30 mph in the city. Other common reasons include driver inattention (36% of crashes) and failure to yield to pedestrians (27% of crashes).

The majority of pedestrian fatalities in New York City occur on major thoroughfares such as Times Square. 79% of these fatalities are due to private drivers. 21% are due to taxis, trucks, and buses. 80% of drivers who kill pedestrians are males. Finally, an unsurprising 43% of the pedestrians killed are not New York City residents. This includes both tourists and commuters.

In order to arrive at all of these figures, the New York City DOT undertook a comprehensive New York City Pedestrian Safety Study that analyzed over 7,000 pedestrian accidents in the city that occurred over the past decade. The DOT used the data to determine common causes, factors, and geographic distribution of the pedestrian fatalities. The DOT then took the results to formulate an action plan designed to increase pedestrian safety and reduce the number of car accidents.

Based on its findings, the DOT formulated a list of actions it promises to undertake, including:
• Installing more pedestrian walk signals at 1,500 new intersections
• Redesigning 60 miles of roadway to increase pedestrian safety
• Redesigning 20 different intersections to increase pedestrian safety
• Decreasing the speed limit to 20 mph in neighborhoods
• Formulating a program designed to increase left turn lane visibility in Manhattan

In 2008, there were 3.49 traffic fatalities per 100,000 people in New York City. This makes New York City the 13th most dangerous city for pedestrian death in the U.S., and the 14th most dangerous city in the world. However, New York City has enjoyed an astonishing decrease in traffic fatalities over the past several years. In the past twenty years, traffic fatalities dropped 63%. In 2009, only 256 traffic fatalities occurred in the city, a record low. In addition, pedestrian fatality rates have dropped 41% in the past twenty years. In 2008, there were 1.8 pedestrian fatalities per 100,000 people in New York City.

As part of the action plan, the DOT is working to reduce the number of traffic fatalities by 50% before the year 2030. In order to reach this goal, DOT is working with numerous agencies, including the Mayor's office, NYPD, New York City Health Department, NYC Transit, and the DMV. The city has set traffic fatality goals for each year leading up to 2030. The goal for 2009 was only 258 fatalities, and the city managed to stay below this goal, clocking in at 256 fatalities that year.

Pedestrian accidents are a leading cause of death among young people. Pedestrian accidents that don't result in fatalities are also associated with loss of quality of life, various cerebrovascular diseases, influenza, and pneumonia. In addition, the financial cost of car crashes is astronomical. Each year, car crashes account for $230.6 billion nationwide, and $20 billion in the state of New York alone. New York City is estimated at about $4.29 billion spent on car crashes and $1.38 billion spent on pedestrian deaths and injuries. This puts New York at the third highest cost per person.

If you or a loved one has been injured in a car accident in New York City, you have legal options. Contact the experienced personal injury lawyers at Gallivan & Gallivan today to discuss your potential claims.

Resources:

The New York City Pedestrian Safety Study & Action Plan, New York City Department of Transportation, http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/nyc_ped_safety_study_action_plan.pdf, August 2010.

July 26, 2015

Glass Door Falls on Construction Worker Because of Broken Hinge; Denial of Summary Judgment for Defendant Affirmed by First Department

The New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department affirmed a trial court's order denying summary judgment for two defendants after a glass door fell on the construction worker plaintiff.

The plaintiff was working at a construction site in New York City. The site was owned by Prudential, and Pinnacle was managing the project. The plaintiff tried to walk through a glass exit door. Upon doing so, the hinge broke off, and the door crashed down onto the plaintiff. The plaintiff sustained injuries and sued the property owner and construction company for personal injury damages sustained from the construction accident.

The plaintiff made claims under Labor Law 200. Labor Law 200 is the common law negligence statute for negligence at construction sites. In making a Labor Law 200 claim, the plaintiff must show that: (1) a dangerous condition or defect existed, (2) the defendant had notice of this defect, (3) the defect injured the plaintiff, and (4) the defendant had control over the plaintiff or was responsible for supervising the plaintiff.

The defendants were unable to show that the glass door's broken hinge did not present a dangerous condition or defect at the construction site. The fact that the hinge was broken was not contested. In fact, the foreman stated in his affidavit that the hinge had been broken for at least a week prior to the accident. The hinge kept coming dislodged from the door frame whenever the door was opened, so he and other workers had to manually push the door back into the frame.

The defendants were also unable to show that they did not have notice of the defect. The project manager and facilities director, both employed by the defendants, testified they were aware of the defective hinge but couldn't remember if they saw it before or after the accident. The project manager also testified later that he was sure he first learned of the defective hinge after the accident. This created an issue of credibility regarding this witness, which had to be judged by the jury.

In addition, the foreman stated in his affidavit that the door became dislodged from the frame every time it was used up to one week prior to the accident. Thus every time someone walked through the door, they had to manually push the door back into its frame. Pinnacle's property manager walked through the door multiple times during this week and must have noticed this issue prior to the accident.

The defendants were unable to prove prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law because they could not prove a dangerous condition or defect did not exist and could not prove that there was no notice. As such, the Court found the lower court's denial of summary judgment was proper. An interesting issue arises regarding whether both of the defendants had control over the plaintiff or were responsible for supervising the plaintiff in his work. This issue was not discussed in the case decision. However, Pinnacle appears to have been directing the project and was very active on site.

It is unknown whether the plaintiff worked for Pinnacle and/or received work orders from Pinnacle. There is nothing in the appellate decision to suggest that Prudential would have been in control or supervision of the plaintiff. Prudential is a real estate developer that purchases land and hires independent contractor companies to design and build property on that land. Usually the real estate developer is not present on site and is more involved in the sale of the property than the construction of it.

If you or a loved one was injured on a construction site, call the experienced personal injury lawyers at Gallivan & Gallivan today to explore your legal options.

Resources:

Luebke v. MBI Group et al., 122 AD3d 514 (1st Dept., Nov. 20, 2014).