$2.3 Million - Medical Malpractice

A doctor's failure to properly evaluate a 55-year-old patient's complaints of abdominal pain, bloating and fatigue caused an 8-month delay in diagnosing her ovarian cancer, depriving her of the opportunity for a cure.

$2.25 Million - Motor Vehicle Accident

A 78-year-old pedestrian was struck and killed by a van that backed into him. A "zone of danger claim" was also made on behalf of his wife, who was walking beside him at the time of the accident.

$1.675 Million - Premises Liability

A 51-year-old pedestrian suffered a comminuted patella fracture, requiring surgical removal of the patella, when she slipped and fell on a wet sidewalk graphic that was not slip-resistant.

$1.2 Million - Medical Malpractice

The failure to timely diagnose and treat herpes encephalitis resulted in the death of a 28-year-old male patient.

$1Million - Medical Malpractice

A 46-year-old woman suffered a 5-month delay in the diagnosis of rectal cancer and its advancement to Stage IV as a result of the pathologist's misinterpretation of her colonoscopy biopsy specimen. 

View more results

* Prior results do not guarantee a similar result.

Twelve (12) Members have received the 2014 AV� Preeminent™ 

Rating - Highest Possible Peer Review Rating In Legal Ability and Ethical Standards - and have also been selected by their peers for inclusion in The Best Lawyers in America� 2014 in the fields of Plaintiff Personal Injury Litigation, Product Liability and Medical Malpractice. The lawyers are:

Robert G. Sullivan	Nicholas Papain	Michael N. Block	Christopher T. McGrath
Vito A. Cannavo	John F. Nash	Frank V. Floriani	Marie Ng
Eleni Coffinas	David J. Dean	Hugh M. Turk	Brian J. Shoot

In the past, covert video surveillance has generally been employed by defendants' attorneys to rebut damage claims in personal injury cases against the unsuspecting plaintiff.   

However, surveillance and security cameras are now popping up everywhere, filming virtually every aspect of our every day lives whether we know it or not, or whether we like it or not.   

Video cameras are commonplace in schools, in taxis, in our cars, at the supermarket, gas stations, traffic intersections, on highways, in office buildings and public streets. You might not notice them, but a closer look at your surroundings will often reveal that you are on camera.  Thus, the who, what, where, when and why questions can be answered by simply going to the videotape, leaving little to the imagination.

Video footage is especially helpful in cases involving devastating injuries to our clients that often prevent them from testifying as to how and why an accident happened. Of course, the opposite is also true if a video shows it was our client that was responsible for causing an accident. Either way, the existence of a video should be discovered as early as possible to avoid any unwanted surprises down the road.

A favorable video can prompt an early resolution and settlement where the video eliminates questions and establishes the fault of a defendant. If that is not possible at trial, it can be the most effective demonstrative evidence to persuade jurors.

The key of course is visiting the scene of the accident as early as possible to determine if there was a camera in the area. If a camera is identified, then securing a copy of the video to determine if the accident was filmed must be done immediately. Video footage is often destroyed after thirty days.

Pre-action preservation letters, discovery motions and/or freedom of information requests, are easy and effective tools to obtain a video once it has been shown that a camera existed at the scene that may have captured the accident.

Real time video effectively brings jurors to the scene, with little or no conjecture. Moreover, since the tape is factual evidence, not subjective testimony, it is beyond dispute and not subject to traditional cross examination and credibility attacks which can distract a jury.

It can not be overstated how important early investigation and discovery of an accident video can be to a case.  This will help ensure the preservation of crucial evidence for discovery and use at trial.

In a premises liability case against the New York City Housing Authority, proof of actual or constructive notice is usually crucial to the success of the litigation.  However, notice evidence is often limited to a client's claim that he or she made complaints via phone calls to the New York City Housing Authority's call center, a 1-800 number, without any written ticket or proof of the phone call.  To refute proof of notice, the Housing Authority frequently denies that such phone calls were made.  Therefore, a threshold element of the proof becomes dependent on a "he said-she said" issue, and the Housing Authority will try to hurt the credibility of our clients so jurors give less weight to a plaintiff's testimony, including that as to notice.

However, the Housing Authority's call center, itself, may provide useful discovery to eliminate this "he said-she said" issue in cases where notice is an element of proof.  Similar to 9-1-1 calls, conversations between a caller and operator at the Housing Authority's call center are recorded.  That's correct . . . New York City Housing Authority call center calls are RECORDED and the tapes are discoverable!

There is no denying that evidence of a telephone call to the Housing Authority has been accepted by courts as establishing notice. In fact, such evidence has even been used to allow a plaintiff to file a late Notice of Claim.  In Johnson v. New York City Housing Authority, 38 A.D.3d 353, 832 N.Y.S.2d 506 (1st Dept. 2007), the First Department considered evidence of a telephone call to the Housing Authority reporting an accident to eliminate the Housing Authority's claim of prejudice and as proof that it had timely notice of a causal connection between the alleged negligence and the petitioner's injuries.

In one of our recent cases against the Housing Authority, we made a discovery demand for "Statements of Party Represented by plaintiff's counsel" and specified the dates our client made phone calls to the Housing Authority.  In response to our demand, the Housing Authority provided a printout of information pertaining to the call (referencing the date, time, caller and operator) and a recording of the conversation. This recording proved that our client accurately reported the problem in a timely manner and substantiated the testimony given at both the 50-h hearing and examination before trial.  Given this discovery, the Housing Authority could no longer claim that they did not have actual notice of the defective condition that caused our client's accident and injuries.

Just as lawyers request 9-1-1 recordings, in cases against the Housing Authority, attorneys should seek discovery of any recorded telephone conversations between their clients and the Housing Authority call center as a matter of routine in pre-trial discovery. 

SPBMC handles many cases that involve dangerous and defective conditions in Housing Authority complexes.  If you have a client who has suffered personal injuries due to the negligence of the New York City Housing Authority, please feel free to contact us to discuss the case.

Lead exposure is still a major cause of poisoning in children. It is caused by swallowing or inhaling lead particles. Lead can harm young children's development and ability to learn.  The most common way for children to suffer lead poisoning is from swallowing or inhaling dust from old paint that is on the floor, toys or surfaces subject to constant rubbing such as windowsills and doors.   

New York State requires that health care providers test all children's blood lead level at age one and two.  Providers must question the child's caregiver as to whether the child may have been exposed to lead at every well visit up to the age of six. If there is a possibility that the child may have been exposed, the provider is required to test the child for lead again. Lead is tested for by a simple venous blood test. Blood lead levels of 10 mcg/dl or greater must be reported to the Department of Health for all New York City residents within 24 hours.   

Under New York City law, landlords are required to maintain a safe dwelling at all times and work involving repairs or disturbance of lead paint must always be done by properly trained personnel using safe work practices. The law requires landlords to actively ascertain whether children under the age of seven reside in multiple dwelling units (properties with three or more units) and inspect those units at least once a year for lead hazards.

SPBMC handles many cases involving lead poisoning of young children. With our resources, familiarity with the law and experience litigating these cases, we have represented children and their families with success. If you have a client with a child who has suffered exposure to lead, please contact us immediately to discuss the case.   

As you may already know, Section 205-a of New York's General Municipal Law (G.M.L. � 205-a) permits firefighters to recover for injuries sustained when any person, whether an owner of property or one in control thereof, violates any statute, ordinance, rule, order or regulation, and such violation causes, either directly or indirectly, injury or death to a firefighter. General Municipal Law Section 205-e (G.M.L. � 205-e) affords a similar right of recovery to police officers. Although these cases generally arise when a firefighter or police officer is injured while responding to a fire or emergency situation, recovery may also be had when a firefighter or police officer is injured due to an unsafe condition at his or her station house, on a departmental vehicle, or during a training exercise.

Section 27-a of the New York State Labor Law requires that all employers provide their employees with a place of employment that is "free from recognized hazards that are causing or likely to cause death or serious physical harm to its employees... ." This statute has been held to apply to the City of New York in regard to both firefighters and police officers alike, and thus, is a sufficient predicate for recovery under both G.M.L. �� 205-a and 205-e. 

The Second Department recently addressed the application of Labor Law � 27-a to a police officer's right of recovery under G.M.L. � 205-e in Gammons v. City of New York, 109 A.D.3d 189, 972 N.Y.S.2d 559 (2d Dept 2013).  In Gammons, a police officer was injured while on "barrier truck detail" when she fell off the back of a police flatbed truck while attempting to load wooden police barriers. The officer sued the City of New York and the New York City Police Department to recover damages under both common law negligence and G.M.L. � 205-e. The officer's G.M.L. � 205-e claim was premised upon the defendants' violation of Labor Law � 27-a due to the defendants' failure to equip the back of the truck with a railing. 

The defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, arguing that the "firefighter rule" barred the common law negligence cause of action and that Labor Law � 27-a was not a proper statutory predicate for a claim under G.M.L. � 205-e. The defendants based their argument on the contention that Labor Law � 27-a does not provide a private right of action to recover damages for personal injuries, and that the truck was not a recognized hazard as defined by that statute.

The motion court granted the branch of the defendants' motion to dismiss the common law negligence claim holding that the firefighter rule applied. However, the motion court denied the branch of defendants' motion seeking the dismissal of the G.M.L. � 205-e claim, holding that Labor Law � 27-a was a proper predicate.

The Second Department affirmed the motion court's finding. The court reasoned that Labor Law � 27-a was a sufficient predicate for liability under G.M.L. � 205-e because the injury sustained by the police officer, namely the fall from the flatbed truck, was caused by defects in the truck which rendered it hazardous. Moreover, the Court acknowledged that a statute can serve as a predicate for a cause of action under G.M.L. � 205-e when it contains a particularized mandate or a clear legal duty, which Labor Law � 27-a does.

In so holding, the Second Department establishes that the City of New York, as the employer of our bravest and finest, has a duty to ensure that the vehicles which they utilize are free from hazards that could cause them harm. Perhaps more importantly, this decision lays the foundation for a right of recovery when a police officer or firefighter is injured due to an unsafe condition at a station house, during a training exercise, or while utilizing departmental vehicles and equipment.

If you have a client who has been injured in the line of duty as a firefighter or police officer, please contact us immediately to discuss the situation.