Results Matter—And So Do You

In a difficult labor law case, our firm has secured a significant payment of 3.5 Million, against all odds, for a worker injured in the workplace. Defendant fell down the steps as a result of a piece of plywood, which obstructed his passage in a building undergoing renovation. As a result of the fall, plaintiff had injuries to his neck back, shoulder, and required surgeries to those parts of his body. Defendant claimed that the plaintiff was not truthful in stating how the accident happened, since a construction supervisor who was at the accident location shortly before the plaintiff fell, did not see any obstruction as was claimed by the plaintiff. Defendant also claimed that the plaintiff has pre-existing injuries and pathology in those parts of his body he claimed he injured in this accident, and that the surgeries were not due to this accident and were unnecessary. Defendant made a summary judgment motion to dismiss the case on liability, alleging that no basis exists for a labor law case (under Labor Law Section 200, 240(1), and Industrial Code violations). Our firm vigorously fought the motion and won. Despite difficult obstacles, our firm skillfully and successfully navigated through the litigation process and secured a remarkable result, way beyond our client’s expectations.

Our client, a construction worker in the Bronx, fell down a staircase during the course of his employment. He sustained serious injuries to his shoulder, elbow and back, for which he had to undergo injections and surgery.

In a complex, hard fought legal battle, our firm secured justice for our client, who suffered an electrocution from faulty wiring at her workplace. After overcoming numerous legal hurdles and changes in legal representation, including a trial resulting in damages awarded to the plaintiff, our firm took charge in 2020.

Despite challenges, we successfully navigated CPLR procedures and diligently pursued the case against all odds. This relentless effort culminated in a landmark judgment of $1,986,410 against the defendants, which they sought to overturn with various claims, all robustly countered by our team.

Through thorough investigation and application of CPLR 54015 and CPLR 317, we ultimately compelled the defaulting defendant to satisfy the judgment with a significant payment of $2.3 million.
This outcome underscores our firm’s unwavering commitment and expertise in achieving justice for our clients against formidable opposition.

Our client, a 78 year old pedestrian, was crossing an uncontrolled intersection in Flushing Queens. He was struck by Defendant’s motor vehicle. He sustained serious injuries, including fractures of the orbital wall and a bimalleolar fracture of the right ankle. He also had open reduction internal fixation of the tibia. Our client died less than 6 months post accident. He was survived by his wife and two adult daughters. An action was instituted in the Supreme Court, for personal injuries and wrongful death.

Defendant argued that the accident was attributable to the elderly decedent who walked onto the roadway between parked vehicles and was not visible. The Defendant further claimed that the Decedent’s death was not attributable to injuries received in this accident, but resulted from the elderly gentleman’s prior, pre existing medical conditions. The Decedent was unable to submit to an examination before trial before his death. Significant liability issues were presented by the Defendant, and we did not have the benefit of Decedent’s sworn deposition testimony to rebut the examination before trial testimony of the Defendant. Further, there were no witnesses to the accident.

We prepared the case meticulously for trial, and took a lengthy deposition of the Defendant to establish liability or fault. Despite the odds, our preparation and skillful negotiations enabled us to do very well for our clients, by settling the case before trial, for the sum of One Million Two Hundred and Fifty Thousand Dollars.

After a landmark legal battle, we obtained a client a total of $1,175,000. Our client was a passenger in a vehicle involved in an accident. The driver, who was intoxicated after purchasing alcohol from two bars, lost control of the vehicle and struck a light pole, knocking it down. Our client sustained injuries that exceeded the vehicles coverage of $25,000, so we subpoenaed the driver’s credit card statements, vigorously pursued the two bars for compensation, and proved that the amount of alcohol he purchased from the bars rendered him visibly intoxicated. We got our client $200,000 from one bar, $925,000 from the other, and $25,000 from the vehicle’s insurance. $200,000.00 +
$950,000.00 +$25,000.00 = $1,175,000.00

On a winter’s day, our client, a New York City police officer, slipped and fell as he was descending the exterior steps of the building known as the Queens North Task Force Building, located in Flushing, Queens. Our client sustained fractures of his right hand, requiring two hand surgeries, ending his career as a police officer.

Action was commenced in Supreme Court against the City of New York, as the owner of the building and against a scaffolding company. Prior to the date of accident, the scaffolding company constructed a “sidewalk shed”, or “scaffold shed”, over the portion of the steps where the accident occurred, in connection with building facade work.

We argued on our client’s behalf that the exterior steps at the location of the occurrence, were allowed to fall into a state of disrepair with depressions, and gaps between metal nosings at the edge of the stair treads. These created a defective and dangerous condition on the steps. Such condition was made more dangerous and hazardous as a result of frozen precipitation in the form of ice over the steps. We also argued that the sidewalk shed allowed water to drip onto the steps and freeze thereby increasing the slipping hazard.

We retained a forensic meteorologist, a professional engineer and an economist. The meteorologist found that on the date of accident, any ice on the deck of the sidewalk scaffolding above the steps, would have melted or dripped from the scaffolding onto the steps, then would have refroze and remained frozen through the time of the accident. Our consulting engineer noted that the ice on which the plaintiff slipped was formed from water coming down through the rusty portion of the sidewalk shed. This aggravated and made more dangerous the condition of the steps.

The Defendants argued that they did nothing wrong, that our client had worked out of the building where he fell, was familiar with the steps and that his fall was due to his own negligence. They also argued that any snow or ice was properly removed and that the sidewalk shed did not contribute to any water accumulation which froze on the steps. The City further argued that as a City employee, our client was precluded from recovering damages against the City. The scaffolding company’s motion for summary judgment on liability was denied.

Our team of personal injury attorneys in NYC was successful in settling the case before it was submitted to the jury, for the sum of One Million Fifty Thousand Dollars. The City paid One Million and the Scaffolding Company paid Fifty Thousand Dollars. Our success was in large part due to the knowledge and experience of our attorneys in handling such cases and our tenacity in obtaining helpful information from the Defendants, through a tedious and difficult discovery process.

Our client slipped and fell due to ice on a sidewalk. It is very difficult to prove liability in snow & ice cases in New York, so we investigated the adjacent building’s water systems and found that they were illegally funneling water from the roof to the sidewalk. This client had a prior fusion surgery to her back, and this fall required a second fusion surgery. The insurance company argued that this was a pre-existing injury, but we fought vigorously for our client’s rights and got the insurance company to tender their full policy limits of $1 Million Dollars shortly after depositions were completed.

A tow truck operator was working underneath a car when it was struck by a truck. He sustained a right shoulder injury for which he underwent arthroscopic surgery and claimed to sustain a TBI. Notwithstanding the defense’s vehement opposition to his TBI claim, we obtained a $925,000 settlement for our client on a $1,000,000 policy.

The plaintiff, a delivery driver, was on a work break resting in his car, while his car was sideswiped at low speed, with minimal damage, by a car coming out of the parking space behind him. He underwent treatment, thereafter, including a left knee arthroscopy and an anterior cervical discectomy with fusion for a disc herniation at C5-6. The client had a history, though, of a neck injury with an MRI, which showed a similar, large C5-6-disc herniation. Despite the defense’s vehement opposition, in which they hired an accident reconstructionist that opined that the low-speed impact couldn’t have caused his injuries, paired with the significant pre-existing cervical herniation, we obtained summary judgment on liability against the defendants and went on to settle the case a week before trial for $750,000.

Our client was lawfully driving on a Queens highway when a truck in front of him caused a collision with his vehicle. He sustained injuries that necessitated an arthroscopic surgery to his shoulder. We fought for our client’s rights vigorously through tough litigation, and despite the defense’s argument that our client did not maintain a safe distance with the truck, right before trial, we were able to settle the case for $600,000.

Our client fell on the exterior steps of his apartment complex. He sustained a soft tissue ankle injury for which he treated without any surgeries. He was willing to accept $250,000 as compensation for his injuries, but the defense argued that anything more than $75,000 was excessive. The property owner was a successful developer who retained a renowned law firm to defend him. They fought hard, but to no avail, as our firm argued vigorously before the appellate court obtaining our client a total of $522,000.

On a cold February morning, our client slipped and fell, on the exterior asphalt pavement of the parking lot to the premises known as the Bulova Building, in Jackson Heights, Queens. He slipped and fell as a result of snow and ice on the pavement and sustained a fracture of the left femoral neck with displacement requiring left hip hemiarthroplasty. Legal Action was commenced in the Supreme Court, with the primary defendants being, the property owner and the snow removal contractor.

Notably, there was considerable snow on the ground and an ongoing snow storm was in progress when our client fell. New York State Courts have recognized that in cases where snow is in progress, liability may not lie against the property owner or the snow removal company. An owner or possessor of land is afforded a reasonable time after a snow storm to remedy the condition. Therefore, at first impression we had a very difficult case with questionable liability. Despite the unfavorable odds, we were not dissuaded. Our office conducted a thorough investigation and retained a forensic meteorologist and professional engineer on behalf of our client, to assist us in the investigation.

The professional engineer conducted an inspection of the accident location. He found that the pavement where the accident occurred had settled. As a result, a sizeable depression was formed in the pavement. The depression was sloped down on all sides and allowed water, snow and ice to accumulate. Our client testified at his deposition, that he slipped and fell on ice that had accumulated at the depression, which was covered by the fresh falling snow. The forensic meteorologist performed a specific weather condition analysis and the professional engineer who had inspected the accident location, confirmed that as the temperatures fell below freezing, liquid in the depression from prior snow events froze and formed ice. Based on the weather conditions ice was capable of forming prior to and at the time of the accident.

The snow removal contractor and property owner made a motion to dismiss the case. They argued that the depression in the asphalt pavement of the parking lot was a defect too trivial to be actionable. They also argued that since an ongoing snow storm was in progress, there was insufficient time to remedy the condition. The court, denied the owner’s motion. The case was settled prior to trial, for $375,000. Our client, who was told by other attorneys he initially consulted, that he did not have a case, was happy indeed.