New York Car Accident Lawyer Blog

Published on: August 27, 2012

The defendants claim that there is no objective medical evidence

by Stephen Bilkis

A man was involved in a car accident in 2002 and he sustained injury in his shoulders, neck and back. According to an MRI report his spinal injury involved bulging discs that impinged his spinal canal. He received treatment and therapy for his injury and he also received compensation for the spinal injury he sustained when he missed work for the days of his confinement until he recovered from his injury.

In 2008, the man figured in another motor vehicle accident. He filed a suit for damages from a personal injury he sustained when he injured his back, shoulders and neck. He claims that he is in constant pain; he has lost strength in his arms; he has lost the full range of motion in his back and neck; and cannot perform his regular daily tasks and perform his regular work.

The man sued the defendants who were owners of the motor vehicle that figured in the accident as well as their insurer. He claims that he sustained serious injury for which he demands compensation under the Insurance Law.

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.

Published on: August 22, 2012

At the time of the accident, claimant was 53 years old

by Stephen Bilkis

At the time of the car accident, claimant was 53 years old, with a medical history that included a heart attack, and treatment of high blood pressure. As she was driving at or near highway speed with two of her grandchildren in the back seat, a chunk of concrete measuring approximately 9″ x 12″ x 6″ hit the front hood of her car, penetrated the windshield, hit the steering wheel, and then struck claimant on the left side of her forehead, rendering her unconscious. Claimant’s car drifted off the right side of the roadway, eventually striking a tree beyond the right shoulder of the roadway and coming to rest. At the time of the accident, claimant was wearing a lap belt with a shoulder harness seatbelt.

Claimant regained consciousness while she was still in her car. Her first memory after the accident is of regaining consciousness while lying halfway on her back, seeing a large hole in the windshield, reaching for a tissue because there was blood in her eye, and realizing that she was being attended to by another person. Claimant inquired many times about the safety of her grandchildren before again losing consciousness. Thereafter, claimant was brought in the emergency room at Albany Medical Center (AMC).

A source said that, claimant was admitted to AMC, and was treated by neurosurgeon Dr. John Waldman. Initial CT scans of claimant’s skull taken the day of the accident indicated that she had suffered numerous skull fractures in the area of her left eye socket involving the forehead bone behind her left eyebrow, the bones of the outer upper part of the eye socket, the roof of the eye socket, and the upper part of the eye socket near the temple, as well as fractures of the bones along the left side of her sinuses behind her nose. In addition, the initial CT scans indicated a small epidural hematoma (i.e. a blood clot between her skull and the dura, the fibrous material that covers and protects the brain), a traumatic subarachnoid hemorrhage (blood in the fluid between the brain and the dura), and bloody fluid in the ethmoid sinus. The CT scans also revealed pneumocephalus (air inside the skull cavity), indicating that the dura may have been torn at the time of the head injury. The CT scans also indicated that claimant had sustained trauma in the area of the skull where the olfactory nerve (the nerve that senses odors) is located. In addition, claimant had a deep laceration of approximately two inches on her forehead above her left eyebrow.

Published on: August 19, 2012

The cause of action is for personal injuries

by Stephen Bilkis

The cause of action is for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff in a motor vehicle accident that occurred in front of 980 Madison Avenue in New York County when the taxi in which she was a passenger struck another vehicle. Plaintiff’s face came into contact with the divider between the rear seat and front seat inside the vehicle.

Defendants move for the dismissal of plaintiff’s compliant on the ground that she has not sustained a serious injury as defined under Insurance Law.

A witness said, that the injuries alleged to have been sustained by the plaintiff as listed in her bill of particulars, include, a two centimeter laceration below her nose which has left a permanent scar, cervical strain, upper thoracic strain, headaches, “ADHD-like symptoms; generalized anxiety disorder; depression.” In support of their motion, defendants annex a copy of plaintiff’s deposition testimony. In addition, defendants submit the affirmed report of Robert D. Goldstein, M.D., a plastic and reconstructive surgeon who examined the plaintiff Dr. Goldstein reports shows that there is a 1.5 cm transversely oriented scar in the upper lip. This scar is of good cosmetic quality and does not show any evidence of hypertrophy or keloid formation.

Published on: August 17, 2012

Choices of law cases are one of the most confusing scenarios

by Stephen Bilkis

Choices of law cases are one of the most confusing scenarios that in turn are capable of creating legal imperfections that even courts at times, find hard to fix. Our source claims that sometimes, the very law that was created to protect the innocent is also the same one that produces unlikely results to injured persons who otherwise should have been protected if not for the confusing nature of these kinds of laws. Although the country is divided into several states that have different policies on choices of law cases, they must deliver the fairest results in cases to protect all those who the most need coverage and defense. This next case is about conflicting laws of different states and how an innocent victim can get sidestepped because of confusion from conflicting laws.

In October 1964, three Michigan State University students decided to go on a trip in a Japanese sports car owned by Marcia Lopez. The sports car was a gift from his father and was registered and insured under her name in New York City. Susan Silk invited Marcia Lopez to visit her home in Michigan for the break when another passenger, Catharina Tooker, asked to hitch a ride with her classmates to visit some of her friends near the area where they were going. The three were taking academic courses in the university where they also stayed and lived in one dormitory. While driving in Michigan, Ms. Lopez lost control of the vehicle which caused it to overturn and killed her and Ms. Tooker. Ms. Silk sustained serious injuries from the car accident. Ms. Lopez and Ms. Tooker were both from New York. According to our sources, when an accident that involves persons of different domiciles, usually, the choice of law is determined by “lex loci delicti” or to apply the laws of the place wherever the tort happened.

The father of one of the injured passengers, Oliver Tooker, Plaintiff, moved for an action of wrongful death against the father of the driver, Myer Lopez, the Defendant in a New York City Court. The Defendant then insisted that he had no liability over the death of the other’s daughter by issuing the Michigan guest statute as an affirmative defense, or plainly, to prevent the Plaintiff from being entitled to claims. To be able to determine which law must be upheld, several cases were cited and used as reference to establish the choice-of-law, and whether it is fair to use the doctrine of “lex loci delicti”. Under these governing rules, it was clear that although the accident happened in Michigan, since the driver of the car and one of the passengers lived in New York, the laws of the State should be implemented. Under New York laws, the injured person, in this case the deceased, is entitled to claim damages from the deceased driver defendant, in this case as represented by her father from accidents arising from guest-host relationship, whereas the Michigan guest statute does not permit an injured guest for recovering damages from a host driver under normal circumstances. The driver will only be liable if he or she committed gross negligence and willful misconduct.

Published on: August 14, 2012

The cause of action is for personal injuries

by Stephen Bilkis

The cause of action is for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff in a motor vehicle accident that occurred in front of 980 Madison Avenue in New York County when the taxi in which she was a passenger struck another vehicle. Plaintiff’s face came into contact with the divider between the rear seat and front seat inside the vehicle.

Defendants move for the dismissal of plaintiff’s compliant on the ground that she has not sustained a serious injury as defined under Insurance Law.

A Lawyer said, that the injuries alleged to have been sustained by the plaintiff as listed in her bill of particulars, include, a two centimeter laceration below her nose which has left a permanent scar, cervical strain, upper thoracic strain, headaches, “ADHD-like symptoms; generalized anxiety disorder; depression.” In support of their motion, defendants annex a copy of plaintiff’s deposition testimony. In addition, defendants submit the affirmed report of Robert D. Goldstein, M.D., a plastic and reconstructive surgeon who examined the plaintiff Dr. Goldstein reports shows that there is a 1.5 cm transversely oriented scar in the upper lip. This scar is of good cosmetic quality and does not show any evidence of hypertrophy or keloid formation.

Published on: August 11, 2012

This is a case involving a car accident and personal injury claims

by Stephen Bilkis

According to reports received by a New York Car Accident Lawyer, this is a case involving a car accident and personal injury claims. Carlos Roldan and Carmen Torres filed a case against the County of Suffolk police Department. According to their testimony, on January 21, 2004 at about 2:30 in the afternoon, Roldan and Torres from Nassau County were passengers on a vehicle owned and driven by Jose Lopez-Nieves. They were driving along Washington Avenue and Express Drive South. They stopped at a red light at the intersection when the accident happened.

Roldan testified that while their vehicle was at stop along the intersection of Washington Avenue and Express Drive South, they were hit by an oncoming police car owned by Suffolk County Police Department and driven by Theresa Brondtman. It was after found out that the Police Car was also involved in a collision with another vehicle operated by Joseph G. Sorgie, Jr. and owned by Laura A. Sorgie.

Still according to the report, Suffolk County Police Department argued that Brondtman was operating the police car under official duty and was on her way to respond to a distress call. She further told the court that when she received the police radio call about a stabbing on Fifth Avenue, she turned on the siren and full lights and proceeded to the scene of the crime. Upon reaching Washington Avenue, Brondtman slowed down and observed the oncoming traffic. She proceeded when she established that at the moment, one part of the street was one-way-traffic. She drove no more than 20 miles per hour when suddenly a vehicle collided with Brondtman sending her spinning about 180 degrees before finally colliding with the white van where Roldan was a passenger. After the accidents, Brondtman stayed inside her vehicle and called for backup.

Published on: August 8, 2012

The said car was a red Chevrolet

by Stephen Bilkis

According to reports that reached a lawyer this is a case about two intoxicated males from Manhattan who are driving a vehicle despite of being under the influence of alcohol. The said car was a red Chevrolet which was allegedly parked while the driver went out to get something from a store while the other male companion stayed inside the car. The incident happened at about 7 o’clock in the evening of October 2, 1971.

The two people involved in the said car accident were Wenceslao, who was the driver and Marzulli, the passenger who allegedly made the vehicle move while parked in front of a store. According to the story, Wenceslao parked the red Chevrolet in front of the store to grab something. While parked, Marzulli stayed inside the vehicle and waited for Wenceslao. Based on accounts that reached a source, Marzulli was seen trying to get to the driver’s side of the vehicle. He was seen somewhere in the middle of the passenger side of the car when it began moving backwards. It was also accounted that at that time, there was no engine being started was heard in the vicinity. It was also noted that the street was levelled enough for a car or any vehicle to stay parked at any given time. The car began moving until it hit another car which was parked a few feet away from where the red Chevrolet was originally parked. Wenceslao immediately came out of the store just in time to see the accident happened. He apparently ran to his car and confronted Marzulli on what happened. After the brief exchange of words between the two men, Marzulli went back to the passenger’s seat and Wenceslao got on the Chevy and drove off, leaving the scene of the accident.

Meanwhile, Police Officer Mulvihill was in the area and saw everything that happened. He then followed the red Chevrolet driven by Wenceslao and stopped the men three blocks away from the scene of the accident. The men were taken to the station and were charged with leaving the scene of an accident wilfully. Marzulli testified that we was indeed intoxicated at that time but claimed he did nothing to make the car move while it was parked. He said that he tried to stop the car, stepping on the accelerator instead of the break in the process, after he felt that it started to move by its own. But his claims were contradicted by the police officer as well as by Wenceslao. It was fortunate, according to a Personal Injury attorney that nobody was injured in the said incident.

Published on: August 5, 2012

Kevin Mitchell, a New York Resident rented a 2000 Dodge Durango

by Stephen Bilkis

Kevin Mitchell, a New York Resident rented a 2000 Dodge Durango from Budget-Rent-A-Car in Hartford, Connecticut on May 26, 2000. Budget-Rent-A-Car is a Delaware company where the main offices are in Illinois. The vehicle is registered in Connecticut under Team Fleet Financing Corporation, which is also a Delaware company with the main offices in Illinois. The following day Mr. Mitchell was driving the car on Route I-81 in Ryan Township, Pennsylvania with Tahani Roper, Tracy Brown and Thais Mitchell as passengers. A witness said in an attempt to over-take another vehicle, the car swerved of the road, hit a guardrail and went down an embankment. The vehicle flipped multiple times, which caused some of the passengers to be thrown out of the vehicle. Tahani Roper, an infant died instantly. Tracy Brown, the baby’s mother, and Thais Mitchell claim to have been seriously injured.

After the accident, Tracy Brown and Thais Mitchell filed a case in the New York Supreme Court against Kevin Mitchell, Budget-Rent-A-Car and Team Fleet Financing Corporation. Thais Mitchell appeared for himself and Tahani Roper, the baby who died. As for the defendants, their allegation was that Budget-Rent-A-Car and Team Fleet Financing Corporation were also liable for the careless driving of Mr. Mitchell.

Under the New York law, there is an explicit liability that is given to the vehicle owners for the negligence of driver’s who are using the vehicle with the owner’s permission. It does not matter if the accident occurs outside New York according to a Lawyer. With this in mind, you would think that Budget-Rent-A-Car and Team Fleet Financing Corporation are accountable for the accident.

Published on: August 2, 2012

Multi-car Accident Could Have Been Much Worse

by Stephen Bilkis

Several cars were involved in recent multicar accident Staten Island which started after a flatbed truck collided with another vehicle. The chain reaction continued and eventually eight cars were involved in the pileup. In total, five vehicles, many with multiple passengers inside, were damaged in the incident, states a witness.

The car accident started near a construction side which may or may not have been the cause of slowing traffic at the time of the event. The truck driver was unable to slow down quickly enough to avoid hitting the vehicle immediately in front of him. The truck’s stopping time was longer than usual because there was sand on the portion of the road where the accident took place.

The midday accident might have been worse if it had happened during rush hour when more cars would have been on the road. Of the eleven people who were spread amongst the five vehicles, only three escaped without any noticeable injuries; the other eight people were sent to hospitals to receive treatment for a wide variety of minor injuries. At least one of the people involved in the accident was a toddler, who was properly placed in his car seat at the time of the incident.