Motor Vehicle Accidents

Monday, May 2, 2016

Go-Kart Injuries are Especially Hazardous to Children

A go-kart injury can change your life. According to the U.
Read more . . .

Monday, April 11, 2016

Bus Driver Wins $487,000

 Mr. Chin was a bus driver when he was struck broadside by another vehicle. The question put to the jury was only damages. He suffered two lumbar herniations, and a fracture and a ligament tear on his non-dominant hand. He missed approximately eight months on the job, which was a past lost wage claim of $59,000.
Read more . . .

Wednesday, January 6, 2016

Appellate Division, 2d Department Roundup: November 18, 2015 Edition

In this edition of the Roundup, employees at a local psychiatric hospital are attacked by a patient, and a dialysis patient falls off the scale during a weigh-in, as well as several motor vehicle accidents. The most exciting element was that the City was found to have constructive notice of expansion joists that were not flush with the pavement on the bike path of the Manhattan Bridge, allowing plaintiff's practitioners to sidestep at least one aspect of the prior written consent law. More, after the jump . . . 

Read more . . .

Monday, January 4, 2016

Court of Appeals Alert: Hospitals & Doctors Can Be Responsible for Motor Vehicle Accidents Caused by their Patients

When a loved one is hurt or killed in a motor vehicle collision, a common and reasonable step to take is to explore options for possible claims. Since hospital bills, reduced income, and sometimes, sadly, funeral expenses, put great hardships on friends and family, those who have been victimized by negligent drivers or others look to find balance. New York Courts, including the New York Court of Appeals, function as a gatekeeper to whom may be held responsible for a loved one’s injury. And often, they can help us understand the complexities of these injuries in modern day life. The case of Edwin Davis v. South Nassau Communities Hospital, recently decided by the New York Court of Appeals, is a signal case to this cause. More, after the jump . . .

Read more . . .

Wednesday, November 18, 2015

World Day of Remembrance for Road Traffic Victims

This week was World Day of Remembrance for Road Traffic Victims, celebrated the third Sunday of November each year, to remember the many millions killed and injured on the world's roads. This day has even be adopted by the UN General Assembly as the appropriate acknowledgement for victims of road traffic crash and their families. A march occurred this week from City Hall Park to the United Nations to raise awareness for the victims of traffic accidents. Mayor de Blasio was there too, to promote his Vision Zero initiative. There is some argument that it is working: there have been 197 fatalities on the roads this year in New York City, 109 of which were pedestrians. We at Feldman, Kronfeld & Beatty stand in solidarity with those marching in support of safe streets and championing justice for those who have been injured or killed by automobiles.

If you, or a loved one, has been hurt in an automobile crash, the experienced motor vehicle attorneys at Feldman, Kronfeld & Beatty can be of assistance. You can contact them for a free consultation at (212) 425-0230 or at

Friday, November 6, 2015

2d Judicial Department, Appellate Division Roundup: October 28, 2015 Edition

In this good dozen decisions, we have a basic lesson on hearsay evidence, as well as multiple occasions where cases against municipalities are lost due to proper notice requirements, and some cases laying out the basic law regarding medical malpractice. Also, a foray of teen house parties into the realm of premises and landowner negligence, after the jump . . .

Read more . . .

Friday, October 30, 2015

2d Judicial Department, Appellate Division Roundup: October 21, 2015 Edition

In this edition of the Roundup, we explore the voiding of a jury verdict for $0 for future pain and suffering for a slip-and-fall in a grocery store, and the defeat of defendants' summary judgment motion in a case involving an elementary school teacher abusing his pupils. We also explore some more slip-and-fall cases, some automobile threshold actions, and an interesting note regarding preclusion and the bill of particulars. More, after the jump . . .

Read more . . .

Wednesday, October 28, 2015

1st Judicial Department, Appellate Division Roundup: October 20, 2015 Edition

In this threshold-case heavy selection from the First Department, we have one unusual case where Justices Tom and Andrias dissent on the question of what the defendant must show to make a prima facie case that they did not have constructive notice of a condition.  More, after the jump . . . 

Read more . . .

Tuesday, October 27, 2015

2d Judicial Department, Appellate Division Roundup: October 14, 2015 Edition

In this edition, be prepared to explore summary judgments, including several involving slip-and-falls in the rain, bus shelters shattering on people for no reason, and some interesting labor law cases. More, after the jump . .  . 

Read more . . .

Monday, October 26, 2015

UberProblem: TLC Does Not Track Uber's Safety Record

No matter if they're black or yellow, or an international phone-based hailing service or the local medallion owner, vehicles for hire need to be regulated and tracked. The Taxi & Limousine Commission does this for both black and yellow cars, but as it shows, the TLC likely needs to do more. The TLC does not break down the safety record for individual black car companies. A company like Uber, which is growing enormously, needs to be held accountable. Of the 35,528 active black, more than 23,000 are Uber - a make-up 66%. And some of the deadliest accidents were caused by Uber drivers, such as the death of a golfer and his girlfriend in January. Feldman, Kronfeld & Beatty are experienced trial attorneys who can assist with accidents that involve an Uber vehicle; you can ask for a free consultation at (212) 425-0230 or at

Wednesday, October 21, 2015

1st Judicial Department, Appellate Division Roundup: October 15, 2015 Edition

A short update, but unusual as it includes a split regarding a Labor Law motion. Check it out below:

Pedro Quinones v. Olmstead Properties, Inc.

 In this SPLIT opinion Labor Law 240(1) case, we will first address the facts, then the Court's findings and then the dissent's:

While painting over graffiti on a billboard, plaintiff lost his balance and fell. The billboard had a row of concrete blocks in front of it to prevent it from tipping over, and the plaintiff was standing on three of them to reach up to the top. He was loosening one of the straps that held the image to the frame so he could paint underneath it. He had been provided a cherry picker, a safety harness and landyard, and two ladders.

The Court found that the defendant had properly made a showing, by means of an expert, that the defendant had provided via testimony of an executive of the defendant's corporation that he had seen a worker using a cherry picker to change the billboard, and via expert submission that the plaintiff could have used the billboard's frameworks to tie off the landyard of the safety harness.

The dissent, however, found that the defendant executive's testimony didn't rise to the level of raising an issue of fact, as the testimony did not establish that the cherry picker that the executive had seen or the work that had been done using said cherry picker was the same as the plaintiff's situation. Furthermore, the dissent found as a matter of law that the expert's statements were conclusory as although the expert identified spots where the landyard could be tied off, the expert failed to include physical properties of those spots necessary to support plaintiff's weight if he fell and the steps he used to identify those spots. Therefore, the dissent found that the evidence adduced would not reach to the level of rebutting plaintiff's proof.

Robert McCullough v. One Bryant Park, et al.

This labor law and common-law negligence case involved a construction worker who was passing from an exterior roof to an interior room. He stepped into an uncovered "drain hole" and fell to the floor. The Court reversed the granting of summary judgment in favor of One Bryant against the plaintiff on two grounds. First, the doorway was considered a passageway for the purpose of proving a Labor Law 241(6) violation of 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(e)(1). Second, just because the defendants lacked supervisory control over plaintiff's work, they could not be dismissed from common-law negligence claims because the injuries arose from the condition of the workplace, rather than the method used in performing the work, and they failed to make a prima facie case showing that they lacked constructive notice of the uncovered drain hole.

Eduardo Velasquez v. MTA Bus Company

In this case, the plaintiff, on his bicycle, was struck when the defendant bus driver changed lanes. Even though the plaintiff was in the middle lane of traffic, and the bus driver was trying to switch to the left lane of traffic to pass the bicycle, by the defendant driver's own admissions it made a prima facie case of negligence and the plaintiff won on summary judgment.

Mark Walker v. Robert C. Whitney, III

In this threshold motion, the plaintiff's case was dismissed at the Supreme Court and affirmed by the Appellate Division. The defendant submitted reports of an orthopedist and neurologist who found full range of motion, and a radiologist which found degenerative diseases and no evidence of causally related injury. In opposition, the plaintiff failed to properly submit admissible evidence. The unaffirmed MRI findings, which would not be admissible anyways, failed to explain how mild hypertrophic changes of the AC joint could be explained by traumatic injury rather than degeneration. The medical records reviewed by defendant's experts in preparation for their exams were also properly held out. The only admissible evidence was a review by plaintiff's orthopedic surgeon shortly after his arthroscopy, which failed to provide measurements of the decreased range of motion in the left shoulder, and did not provide evidentiary support for a statement that plaintiff's shoulder condition was related to the accident, or address the defendants' experts that any shoulder injury was not due to ongoing pathology and degenerative changes.


Archived Posts


← Newer12 Older →

© 2018 Feldman, Kronfeld & Beatty | Disclaimer
42 Broadway, Suite 1942, New York, NY 10004
| Phone: (212) 425-0230

Personal Injury | Automobile Accidents | Brain Injuries | Construction Accidents | Dog Bites | Medical Malpractice | Motorcycle Accidents | Nursing Home Abuse | Slip/Trip and Fall | Spinal Cord Injuries | Truck Accidents | Accidentes en Construcciones | Wrongful Death

Law Firm Website Design by
Amicus Creative

© Feldman Kronfeld & Beatty | Disclaimer | Attorney Advertising | Law Firm Website Design by Zola Creative