Bicycle Accidents

Published on: September 17, 2012

On 16 April 2006, an officer was on routine motor patrol

by Stephen Bilkis

On 16 April 2006, an officer was on routine motor patrol in Levittown, County of Nassau in the State of New York. At approximately 12:55 a.m., he received a radio assignment to respond to an automobile accident/motor vehicle accident at the intersection of Hempstead Turnpike and Wolcott Road. Upon arriving at the scene, the officer testified that he observed two vehicles which had obviously been involved in an accident. One vehicle had rear end damage and the other vehicle had extensive front end damage. The officer first approached the vehicle with extensive front end damage, a Saturn Sports Utility Vehicle. The officer asked the individual seated in the driver’s seat of the Saturn, the herein defendant, if he was ok and what happened. The defendant stated that he was driving his car when he hit the other vehicle. The officer testified that the Defendant had glassy bloodshot eyes and spoke with slurred speech. The officer also detected the odor of an alcoholic beverage emanating from the vehicle. The officer asked the defendant if he had anything to drink. The defendant stated that he had Martinis. Upon the defendant exiting the vehicle, the officer indicated that the defendant had difficulty maintaining his balance. Thus, the officer reached the conclusion that the defendant was intoxicated, Driving While Intoxicated or DWI, and arrested him at approximately 1:15 a.m. The defendant was then transported to the Nassau University Medical Center for a medical evaluation.

With the officer en route to the hospital, he contacted the Nassau County Highway Patrol Bureau to request that a Highway Patrol Officer respond to the hospital with a blood kit. The purpose of the blood kit was to take a blood sample from the defendant for the purpose of testing it for the presence of alcohol. The officer testified that a Nassau County Highway Patrol Officer eventually responded to the hospital with a blood kit. The officer testified that the patrol officer requested that an emergency room nurse draw a sample of the defendant’s blood. The officer indicated that he observed an emergency room nurse draw the defendant’s blood and the sample was sealed in the blood kit box provided by the patrol officer. The officer then took custody of the blood kit.

Consequently, the defendant is charged with one (1) count of violating the Vehicle and Traffic Law, Driving While Intoxicated or DWI as an Unclassified Misdemeanor.

Published on: September 15, 2012

On November 6, 2009, at around 11:30am, a car had stopped at a red light at the corner of 86th

by Stephen Bilkis

On November 6, 2009, at around 11:30am, a car had stopped at a red light at the corner of 86th Street and 7th Avenue in Brooklyn. The car had stopped for around ten seconds when it was hit from the rear end by a van owned by a private company and driven by one of its employees. As a result of the rear-end collision, the driver of the car sustained a shoulder injury which had to be surgically repaired twice.

The defendant in his deposition claimed that it was raining on that day and hour when the car accident occurred. He also claims that the car accident was not really a rear-end collision but that the van tried to swerve to avoid hitting the car in front of him. He claims to have succeeded in that only the end of the van’s bumper hit the end of the car’s bumper. The defendant also claims that the car stopped abruptly in front of him which made it impossible for him to stop in time and avoid hitting the car in front of him.

These allegations of the defendant in his examination before trial were never made part of the police report accomplished by the police officers who responded at the car accident scene. These allegations were also never contained in the report filed by the employee when he explained the accident to his employer. The car owner points out that the police report clearly showed that the van hit the car squarely in the rear.

Published on: September 13, 2012

A man was driving an SUV on Oyster Bay Expressway on January 27, 1993

by Stephen Bilkis

A man was driving an SUV on Oyster Bay Expressway on January 27, 1993. He was in the left lane and a red Camaro came up behind him. The Camaro flashed his headlights on high beam at him. The SUV stayed put on the left lane. The Camaro then came up on the right lane and pulled alongside the SUV. The Camaro cut off the SUV.

The SUV was startled, he left the left land and went to the center lane. Again the Camaro pulled alongside the SUV. The driver of the SUV thought he was being carjacked so he veered away from the Camaro. The Camaro was persistent. The SUV made contact with the Camaro’s fender.

The SUV driver was now in full panic that he made an illegal U-turn on the Expressway. The Camaro followed him and flashed a badge. The Camaro tried to force the SUV off the road. It was only then that the SUV driver saw clearly that the driver of the Camaro was flashing a badge. The SUV immediately pulled over.

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 8, 2012

Police officers were called to the scene of a car accident

by Stephen Bilkis

Police officers were called to the scene of a car accident at the corner of Connecticut and West Beach Streets. Two cars were involved in the mishap: a Chevrolet with damage to its front bumper and a Volkswagen with damage to its rear bumper.

The Long Island police officers asked for the licence and registration of both drivers. As the police officers were speaking with the drivers, they noticed that the driver of the Chevrolet did not smell of alcohol but his speech was slurred and he did not walk straight. The officers asked the driver of the Chevrolet to walk on a line on the side of the road but the man walked in a zigzag pattern instead.

The police officers arrested the driver of the Chevrolet and brought him to police headquarters for an alcohol breath test. AT the precinct, the breath analyzer test showed that the driver’s blood alcohol level was only 0.03. The friends of the driver who were also passengers in the car came to the police station and informed police that the driver spoke with a slight slurring and his gait was naturally uneven. They assured the police that their friend was not driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

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: September 3, 2012

This action arises from a motor vehicle accident

by Stephen Bilkis

This action arises from a motor vehicle accident which occurred at or near the intersection of Hempstead Turnpike and Lincoln Road, Franklin Square, County of Nassau, State of New York. The accident involved two vehicles, a 1998 Mercedes Benz owned and operated by plaintiff and a 1994 Ford Pick-Up Truck owned and operated by defendant. Plaintiff commenced the action by the filing and service of a Summons and Verified complaint for damages.

A Lawyer said that, it is plaintiff’s contention that at the time of the car accident his vehicle was stopped at a red light on Hempstead Turnpike, and had been so for approximately ten seconds, when it was violently struck in the rear by defendant’s vehicle. In his Affidavit in Support of his motion, plaintiff states, there is nothing to my knowledge and belief that I could have done to avoid this truck accident. My actions of obeying the New York State Vehicle and Traffic Laws were obviously no factor in causing this accident. Based upon Defendant’s conduct and the physical objective facts, it is clear that the Defendant’s negligence was the sole cause of this truck accident and that the Defendant’s conduct fell well below the standard of reasonable care that one should employ and utilize when operating a motor vehicle within the State of New York.

Plaintiff moves, pursuant to CPLR § 3212, for an order granting partial summary judgment against defendant on the issue of liability upon the ground that there are no triable issues of fact and that, as a matter of law, plaintiff is entitled to such judgment; and, upon granting summary judgment, for an order setting this matter down for an assessment of damages. Defendant opposes the motion.

Published on: September 1, 2012

On 12 March 2010, at approximately 9:15 a.m. on Albany Avenue

by Stephen Bilkis

On 12 March 2010, at approximately 9:15 a.m. on Albany Avenue, Amityville, County of Suffolk, State of New York, personal injuries were allegedly sustained by plaintiffs as a result of a pedestrian knockdown or automobile accident with defendants. At the time of the automobile accident, plaintiff was a pedestrian and defendant individual was the operator of a 2009 Dodge Charger that was owned by a rental company, the defendant corporation.

Defendant individual’s girlfriend had rented the vehicle from the defendant corporation.

Allegedly, plaintiff who was a school security guard was struck by the front of defendants’ automobile when it was in the driveway in front of the school where plaintiff was working. 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.

Published on: August 30, 2012

On 3 September 2008, on South Oyster Bay Road

by Stephen Bilkis

On 3 September 2008, on South Oyster Bay Road, at or near its intersection with Ontario Avenue, Plainview, County of Nassau and State of New York, a motor vehicle accident occurred. As a result, a negligence action was brought to recover damages for the personal injury allegedly sustained by plaintiff. It is alleged that the County, its agents, servants or employees, were negligent, reckless and careless when they permitted a defective, unsafe and dangerous condition to exist and in failing to provide proper signage or sufficient warning to motorists with regard to an approaching lane closure, causing plaintiff to swerve to avoid the closed-off lane and hit a vehicle in on-coming traffic. Plaintiff and the County stipulated to include another defendant who performs the tree maintenance adjacent to highways as well.

Both defendants move for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s complaint on the grounds that plaintiff’s own culpable conduct and negligence was a substantial cause of the events that produced her injuries.

The Ruling:

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.