New York Law Blog

Slide and Fall Accident:

A six year old slipped from a wet ladder rung while climbing the slide when it was wet and fractured her elbow.  Her elbow healed in a misaligned fashion and will cause her pain, swelling, and episodes in which her arm will lock up almost every day.  The mother of the child filed suit against the City of New York for negligently failing to create slip resistant rungs on the slide.  The jury decided in favor of the child and her mother and awarded her $3,200,000 for both past and future pain and suffering.

The court found the City had failed to comply with its own specification calling for slip resistant rungs for the protection of the children.  Testimony of the architect established that the city not only had agreed on the protection standard but had approved of the plans for the playground that included slip resistant protection.  This was considered especially necessary because near the slide was a set of spray showers that the children often played in before enjoying the slide.  Therefore the jury found in favor of the plaintiffs and awarded damages to the child for the past and future pain that she would suffer from her injuries.  (Carrasquillo v. City of New York, 2008 NY Slip Op 28400).

Playground Accident: Monkeying Around:

On July 30, 2009, the parents of David M. Gray lost on appeal the dismissal of their lawsuit against their local school district.  Their six years old boy fell off the monkey bars and broke his elbow.  The parents claimed that the height of the bars was too high and that the cushioning underneath was insufficient to cushion the fall of their child.  In addition, the parents claimed that the school was negligent in their supervision of their child.

The Supreme Court found there to be no issues of disputed facts and granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment.  Both the lower and the appellate court held that the defendants presented a prima facie argument to merit a judgment as a matter of law.  The defendants successfully present that the playground met the safety standards.  In addition the plaintiffs failed to present sufficient evidence that there were any issues of material fact.  Therefore the court issued a summary judgment for the defendants finding that the playground met safety standards; also the court held that the school was not negligent because there was an afterschool counselor there supervising and the child had been on the monkey bars a few times prior to the injury.  The plaintiffs failed on appeal and the case has been dismissed. (Dean Gray, V South Colonie Central School District, 2009 NY Slip Op 6069)

Updates on Our Law Firm:

Recently Trolman, Glaser & Lichtman successfully appealed the dismissal of Nestor Perez’s suit against the City of New York.  The plaintiff slipped, fell, and broke his leg while playing soccer in a playground owned by the defendant city.  The Supreme Court had denied the plaintiffs request for a continuance and had dismissed the case because the plaintiffs had not continued with the commencement of trial.  However the plaintiffs and their counsel successfully appealed to the Appellate Division and had the order reversed.  The Appellate Division found that the continuance should be granted and the trial should continue because the plaintiffs had exercised due diligence in their trial preparation.  The appellate court found that the delay in the trial was actually caused by the defendant’s failure to promptly disclose all the requested documents during discovery.  Therefore the lawsuit could continue because of this successful appeal.  The action is still proceeding.  (Nestor Perez, v the City of New York, 2009 NY Slip Op 4270).

Trolman, Glaser & Lichtman: Don’t settle for less!

Slip and Fall Injury:

On June 30, 2009, an appellate court affirmed, with costs, a decision allowing a recovery for personal injuries arising out of a slip-and-fall.  Plaintiff Andrea Rodriguez slipped and fell in the lobby of the building where she was employed, due to a puddle of water that had accumulated on the tile floor.  Rodriguez asserts that “[a] lot” of rain was falling that morning, and that there were no mats or rugs on the lobby floor. After the plaintiff and her husband, suing derivatively, commenced this action, the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that they neither created nor had actual or constructive notice of the hazardous condition.

The court noted, however, that “[a] defendant who moves for summary judgment in a slip-and-fall case has the initial burden of making a prima facie case that it neither created the hazardous condition nor had actual or constructive notice of its existence for a sufficient length of time to discover and remedy it.” (Sloane v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 49 AD3d 522, 523 [internal quotations omitted]).  In this case, the defendants failed to meet their burden. Although they submitted the deposition testimony of their property manager and the plaintiff in support of their motion, they offered no evidence as to when the lobby floor was last inspected prior to the plaintiff’s accident.  Accordingly, the appellate division agreed with the trial court that the action could proceed and denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint.
(Rodriguez v. Hudson View Associates, LLC, 2009 WL 1884844, N.Y.S.2d).

Workplace Injury:

A New York state appellate court recently affirmed a decision holding Duane Reade liable for a personal injury suffered by a mechanic working in one of its stores.  Mechanic Steven Weisman was injured when he fell from a beam he had been standing on in order to reach an inoperable heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) unit located on the roof of a store leased and occupied by the defendant Duane Reade, Inc.  Weisman had been dispatched to the store in response to a “no-heat” call.
(See Weisman v. Duane Reade, Inc., July 14, 2009 WL 2032106 (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dep’t))

Summertime Injury:

The appellate division also recently recognized as valid a claim brought forth by a Brooklyn resident who was injured when an air conditioner fell from the window of a building owned by the defendants.  Although defendants attempted to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that it was the tenant living in the apartment who caused the air conditioner to fall when he was removing it from the window, the court ruled that because they “offered no evidence, other than inadmissible hearsay, as to why the air conditioner fell from the window” and “failed to show that they were not negligent in their initial inspection of the air conditioner’s installation,” they could still be held liable for the plaintiff’s injury.
(See Saunders v. 551 Galaxy Realty Corp., N.Y.S.2d, 2009 WL 1957389).

Updates on our Law Firm:

Michael T. Altman of Trolman, Glaser and Lichtman is currently representing Luis Cueto against Walgreen.  The action concerns an altercation between Cueto and employees of Walgreen.  The appellate court recently affirmed the trial court’s decision denying defendants’ request to conduct a psychiatric examination of Cueto.  The action is still proceeding.
(Cueto v. Walgreen, 880 N.Y.S.2d 526, June 16, 2009)

General Information about Trolman, Glaser & Lichtman:

For the past 40 years, the attorneys at Trolman, Glaser & Lichtman have successfully represented victims of medical malpractice, automobile accidents, workplace injuries and other personal injury accidents.  The firm has recovered millions of dollars for its clients, including a $14 million verdict for a woman who was seriously injured in an automobile accident due to faulty roadway construction, a $12 million settlement for two children who were severely burned by an unsecured gas range in their own apartment, and $4.9 million for a construction worker who suffered a serious back injury due to inadequate safety at a worksite.

Trolman, Glaser & Lichtman: Don’t settle for less!

The New York City Buildings Department and their commissioner Robert LiMandri are implementing new rules to keep better track of crane parts to prevent further construction accidents from occurring. This is great news for construction workers all over the City, and Jeffrey Lichtman had this to say on the new regulations:

This is another example of how our legal system attempts to address critical safety issues. The Buildings Department is now focused on new rules and regulations aimed at preventing another devastating crane collapse in New York City. The crane parts are finally going to be better tracked so that crane operators can be more confident that they are working a structurally sound machine. Last May, a crane collapse took the lives of Donald Leo (30) and Ramadan Kurtaj (28). The age and mechanical condition of the crane are the focus of a federal probe and lawsuit. It is my hope that the lawsuit and probe are successful in creating strict crane-oversight programs preventing these types of events from ever occurring.

Trolman, Glaser & Lichtman: Don’t settle for less!