In the State of New York and City of New York all motor vehicle or car accidents are governed by the New York Vehicle and Traffic Law.  If a driver is making a left turn the law  requires that the  driver “shall  yield the right of way”  to any vehicle approaching from the opposite direction.  The law creates a presumption that the person making the left turn is the person liable in an accident.  The operator of the oncoming vehicle  is entitled to assume that the left turn  driver will yield. see Sapienza v. Harrison 191 AD3d 1028, 1030 as quoted i ..read more

After the holiday season when we have eaten too much, maybe even drank too much and enjoyed that warm fuzzy feeling we might miss a stack boxes standing on a wooden pallet.  Anything is possible after champagne and eggnog.  But can we sue for tripping over  the stack of boxes on the wooden pallet. In Pizzola v. Thyssenkrup El. Corp., the Plaintiff tripped over a wooden pallet with boxes containing  elevator parts.  The Plaintiff brought a lawsuit alleging negligence.  The Defendant moved for summary judgment (dismissal of the case) claiming the boxes were “Open an ..read more

When looking for an interesting case to explore, I usually like cases that have lots of issues thrown together.   The case Frieberg v City of NY 2021 NY Slip Op 02100 at first  does not seem very dramatic- a slip and fall on an exterior step-yet exposes lots of issues.  The decision explores physics, handrails and proximate cause. Proximate cause is connecting the fall to theories of negligence. The case is simple: man falls on exterior steps during a rain storm.  Defendant claims that the fall is due to rain and there is nothing wrong with the step. Defendant expert c ..read more

Playing basketball can be dangerous. Especially if you bang into a wall after hitting a layup The case of Caro v. Zogsports, LLC in the Appellate Division presents the following facts:     Plaintiff was injured playing basketball when he crashed into an unpadded wall.  The lower Court judge dismissed the case.  The Appellate Division upheld the dismissal stating the Plaintiff assumed the risk or agreed to such assume the risk when he played ball.  The interesting fact about this case was the Plaintiff hired an expert who said the wall was too close to the bas ..read more

The case of Jones v. Adams  (Appellate Division 2nd Dep’t, decided February 9, 2022) demonstrates how  the Courts look at facts. A security guard  at  the New York Botanical Garden was injured when he was driving pick up food  for the “pet rabbit.”   The guard was injured when his vehicle was struck by a vehicle driven by another employee of the NYBG.    The defendant moved due to dismiss based upon the rule that in the State of New York an employee cannot sue a co-employee while in the scope of the employment.  It is known as Worker Compe ..read more

  The first sentence of a court decision can sometimes tell you the Court is amused by a case.  In a recent New York Court of Appeals case, the first sentence gives away where the Court is going.  Hewitt Palmer Veterinary Clinic, P.C. “Defendant Palmer Veterinary Clinic treated Vanilla, a dog, for a paw injury at its clinic.”  The Plaintiff was injured when the doctor lost control of dog in the waiting room. The dog jumped at a cat sitting in the lap of the Plaintiff in the waiting room.  You can tell the Court was amused. The real issue on appeal deals with old subjec ..read more

The legal doctrine “Res Ipsa Loquitor” is an ancient legal theory which permits an injured party to prevail in a lawsuit where the accident can only occur as a result of someone’s negligence. The doctrine allows recovery if three elements are satisfied: 1) the event does not ordinarily occur without negligence; 2)the accident occurred due to an instrument in the exclusive control of the defendant; 3)the accident was not due to any voluntary action of the Plaintiff. In the case of Valdez v. Upper Creston 2022 NY Slip Op 00367, a young women in halfway home was in the restroom.  When she re ..read more

In a recent Appellate Division, First Department  decision, (Espinosa v. Montefiore Med. Ctr), a patient sued a hospital claiming delayed treatment caused injuries.  The delay was attributed due to the need to confirm medical coverage.  The Court upheld dismissal of the case stating that a doctor is not under an obligation to treat every patient.  The Court recognized the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act of 1986 which requires hospital to treat emergencies regardless of ability to pay.  The Court found that no “emergency” existed and therefore this law ..read more

A recent appeals court case highlighted a fundamental concept known  as proximate cause. Proximate cause is when the negligence of the defendant is a substantial factor in the injury.  The case is one which stems from the medical malpractice of a doctor.  The Plaintiff alleged various negligent acts by the doctor, however the appeals court determined that  they were not a substantial factor.  Here is the appropriate language. ” In order to establish the liability of a physician for medical malpractice, a plaintiff must prove that the physician deviated or departed from ..read more

In many personal injury, car accident or premises cases it is necessary to hire a medical expert or engineer to prove the case. The expert must base his testimony on accepted ideas in the scientific community which her operates.  A trial denied the ability of a expert to testify about some evidence.  The appellate court affirmed the decision stating that the conclusions were not based on accepted scientific grounds. The following is an excerpt from the decision: Nevertheless, we agree on the merits that the proffered evidence was properly precluded. To satisfy the Frye stan ..read more