Plaintiff struck by bus, claimed driver ignored stop sign
The parties negotiated a settlement
At about 6:30 p.m. on Dec. 15, 2005, plaintiff Andy Smith, 52, a bank’s
senior vice president, was walking westbound on Nelson Avenue, in Hicksville.
While he was crossing the intersection of West Marie Street, Smith was
struck by an MTA bus operated by Betty Cooper, who was traveling northbound
on West Marie Street. Smith claimed that he had to cling onto the front
bumper of the bus to prevent from being run over. He sustained injuries
of his abdomen, his back, his neck, a shoulder and a wrist.
Smith sued Cooper and MTA Long Island Bus. He alleged that Cooper was negligent
in the operation of her vehicle. He further alleged that MTA Long Island
Bus was vicariously liable for Cooper’s actions.
Smith contended that before entering the crosswalk, he looked left and
saw Cooper’s bus three-quarters of a block away. He claimed that
he then proceeded through the crosswalk and was struck by Cooper half
way through the northbound lane of West Marie Street.
Smith further claimed that Cooper failed to yield to pedestrian traffic,
since she had stop sign at the intersection, while his path was uncontrolled.
He contended that Cooper didn’t even make a slight stop at the sign.
Eyewitnesses corroborated his account of the accident.
Cooper contended that she made a full, complete stop at the intersection,
at which point both Smith and her looked at each other to determine who
should go first. Cooper claimed that there was confusion over who was
going to enter first and that, as a result, she struck him in the crosswalk.
She claimed that the impact was almost instant, though Cooper claimed
it was further down in the crosswalk.
Car crashes blamed on trucker’s decision to park in traffic
At about 5:30 p.m. om Oct. 7, 2008, plaintiff Jonessia Jarrell, 51, a retiree
and a part-time school security guard, was driving on the westbound service
road of Sunrise Highway, just west of Blueberry Lane, in East Patchogue.
Jarrell crashed into a 30-yard dumpster connected to a truck that was
parked on the westbound service road, extending 3 to 4 feet into the single
lane for westbound moving traffic. Three other vehicles had previously
crashed into the rear of the truck’s dumpster and were parked in
front of the truck at the time of Jarrell’s collision. Jarrell claimed
that she sustained injuries of her back, a hand and her neck.
Jarrell sued the truck’s driver, William Milken Jr.; the truck’s
owner, InterCounty Paving Associates; and a subsidiary of that company,
4L Equipment Leasing, LLC. Jarrell alleged that Milken was negligent in
the operation of his vehicle. Jarrell further alleged that the remaining
defendants were vicariously liable for Milken’s actions.
Jarrell’s counsel contended that Milken violated New York State Vehicle
and Traffic Law §§ 1201 and 1202, in regard to the illegal parking
of his truck on the service road. Jarrell claimed that as she approached
Milken’s parked vehicle, with the sun setting in her eyes, she moved
to the middle of the one-lane road, but that the truck was parked in her
lane of travel, causing the right, front bumper of her car to impact the
rear of the dumpster. One of the other drivers that hit the truck claimed
that he witnessed the accident, and he corroborated Jarrell’s account.
Store’s manager claimed he was crowned by freight elevator
Digiacomo’s recovery totaled $2.05 million.
On July 12, 2004, plaintiff GiacominoDigiacomo, 37, a store’s manager,
was in the freight elevator at the Rego Park Mall, unloading a delivery
when the elevator door came down, striking him in the back. Digiacomo
claimed that he sustained injuries of his back.
Digiacomo sued the mall’s owners, Alexanders Inc., Alexanders Rego
ParkCenter Inc.,Queens RetailDevelopmentCorp. andVornado Realty, and the
elevator’s contracted service provider, Schindler Elevator Corp.
Digiacomo alleged that the defendants were negligent in their maintenance
of the elevator.
Digiacomo,Alexanders,Alexanders Rego Park Center,Queens Retail Development
and Vornado Realty negotiated a $550,000 pretrial settlement. The matter
proceeded to a trial against Schindler Elevator.
Plaintiff’s counsel claimed that the warning bell for the freight
elevator door was not in compliance with state code because it did not
provide sufficient warning time. He also claimed that the safety edge
of the door was defective as it did not retract upon striking Digiacomo.He
contended that Schindler Elevator did not engage in regular and systematic
preventativemaintenance. Digiacomo’s elevator expert explained that
freight elevators and their safety featuresmust be examined during a preventative
maintenance check. During cross-examination, the defense’s elevator
Defense counsel contended that the elevator’s door was not defective
and that, if any defect existed, it was due to vandalism. Three elevator
mechanics provided testimony regarding the use of a handheld computer
and the procedures for entering data regarding service calls and preventive
maintenance and the amount of time required for the completion of each
task. However, Digiacomo’s counsel reported that the mechanics provided
inconsistent testimony regarding polices and procedures for preventative
maintenance and for examining safety features of freight elevators during
service calls and preventative maintenance calls. According to Digiacomo’s
counsel, themechanics testified that the safety edges are not checked
along the entire edge, which is prone to damage, during preventive maintenance checks.
Motorist ignored stop sign, caused crash, plaintiff claimed
Parties Agreed on a Settlement
On Oct. 27, 2009, plaintiff Douglas Roth, 46, a graphic designer, was driving
westbound on Vanderbilt Parkway, in Half Hollow Hills. As Roth drove by
Half Hollow Hills High School, his vehicle was struck on the driver side
front fender by the passenger-side corner of a rental vehicle operated
by Anikumar Patil, attempting a left turn onto westbound Vanderbilt from
the school’s parking lot. Roth claimed that he sustained injuries
of his back, his neck and a wrist.
Roth sued Patil and the owner of Patil’s vehicle, EAN Trust. Roth
alleged that Patil was negligent in the operation of her vehicle. He further
alleged that EAN Trust was vicariously liable for Patil’s actions.
Roth’s counsel contended that Patil violated New York State Vehicle
and Traffic Law § 1142 by failing to yield to oncoming traffic. A
school security officer that witnessed the accident claimed that Patil
did not stop at the stop sign located at the parking lot’s exit.
Defense counsel contended that Roth failed to see what was there to be
seen, and should have avoided the accident.
Car crash aggravated 20-year-old injury, plaintiff claimed
The jury found Hummer’s damages totaled $100,000
On July 18, 2008, plaintiff Conrad Hummer, 71, a retiree, was driving westbound
on Pulaski Road, in East Northport. While he was stopped at a red light
at the intersection of Third Street, his vehicle was rear-ended by a vehicle
operated by Margarita Reyes. Hummer claimed that he sustained an injury
of his back.
Hummer sued Reyes. He alleged that Reyes was negligent in the operation
of her vehicle.
Hummer contended that Reyes was inattentive while approaching the intersection
and failed to slow and stop her vehicle on time. Liability was decided
via summary judgment. The matter proceeded to a summary jury trial that
School ignored gymnasium’s slippery mats, visitor alleged
Parties negotiated a $400,000 settlement.
On Jan. 17, 2003, plaintiff TeresaDoherty, 44, a homemaker, slipped in
the gymnasium of Smithtown Middle School, which is located at 100 School
Road, in Smithtown. She fell, and she sustained injuries of her back.
Doherty sued the school’s operator, the Smithtown Central School
District. She alleged that the school’s staff was negligent in its
maintenance of the premises. She further alleged that the staff’s
negligence created a dangerous condition.
Doherty claimed that she slipped on water that had been tracked onto one
of the “walk-off”mats that had been placed near the gymnasium’s
entrance. She contended that snow had fallen several days prior to the
incident and that light drizzle and/or sleet were falling at the time
of the incident, which occurred while the gymnasium was hosting an after-school
Doherty’s counsel claimed that the school had not assigned a janitor
to patrol the gymnasium, despite the fact that a total of about 300 people
had attended the basketball game and another sporting event that the school
hosted that day.He contended that the school’s maintenance staff
was aware that the mats became saturated by condensation and that they
were hazardous. He claimed that 13 janitors were working at the time of
the incident, but that none was directed to address the hazard.
The school’s lead janitor acknowledged that he cared more about completing
his janitorial assignments than the safety of the school’s visitors,
and, in a prior cost-benefit analysis, the school had concluded that it
would not have cost anything to reroute a janitor to the gymnasium during
Defense counsel contended that Doherty’s fall occurred near a door
that could only be used to exit the building; thus, water could not have
been tracked in from the outside. She argued that the school’s staff
acted reasonably by placing the mats near the doors, but that Doherty
negligently failed to notice the slippery condition. She also noted that
Doherty’s fall occurred sometime around the beginning of the basketball
game, but that Doherty’s husband, who also attended the basketball
game, did not report the incident until halftime of the game. Defense
counsel further contended that the school’s staff did not have notice
of the condition.
27 results found. Viewing page 1 of 5.
Go to page