$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.

$1 Million - 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 the defendant. If that is not possible, it can be the most effective demonstrative evidence at trial to persuade jurors.

The key of course is searching the scene of the accident as soon as possible to determine if there was a camera. 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 which 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.

Many people are so used to calling utility companies and hearing the automatic prompt, "This conversation may be recorded for quality and assurance purposes," that he or she often doesn't even listen to the warning. So, you may not be aware, but phone calls made to the New York City Housing Authority call center, a 1-800 number, are also recorded ... and these recordings are saved. 

You are often your own best witness in cases involving unsafe, defective and dangerous conditions against the Housing Authority. Now, it is no longer just your word against that of a Housing Authority witness. The Housing Authority's own recordings may provide indisputable proof of your version of the events and that the Housing Authority had notice of an unsafe, defective and/or dangerous condition that it failed to timely correct.

Many also have the mistaken belief that these recordings can not be used as evidence in Court. But, these recordings can be used as evidence in a legal proceeding. It is very important to keep this in mind when making a complaint to the Housing Authority call center and allow yourself the time to accurately and clearly state your complaint as to any safety issues.

In one of our recent cases against the Housing Authority, our client reported that she made a call to the Housing Authority 1-800 number on the day of her daughter's accident, which was caused by a defective condition in their apartment. We were able to obtain a recording of the conversation in which she clearly described the accident and the defect in the apartment. This recording prevented the Housing Authority from claiming that it was never made aware of the accident until a lawsuit was filed. This recorded telephone conversation is critical evidence to the lawsuit and greatly enhances our client's credibility.

If you make a complaint about a condition in your apartment building, make note of the date and time you call. This will make it easier for your attorney to get a copy of the recorded conversation to help prove that you effectively put the Housing Authority on notice. In addition, if you call to report an unsafe condition, your attorney will be able to use the recording to show that the Housing Authority had timely notice of the allegations made in your lawsuit.

SPBMC handles many cases that involve unsafe, defective, and/or dangerous conditions in New York City Housing Authority complexes.  If you feel you have been harmed as a result of an unsafe condition in your home, please feel free to contact us immediately to discuss the situation. 

Lead poisoning is still a common 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 children who have suffered injury from exposure to lead poisoning. With our resources and familiarity with the law and how to litigate these cases, we have been very successful in representing children and their families. 

If your child has suffered injuries from exposure to lead, please contact us immediately to discuss your rights.  

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 employee . . .  ." 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. 

This issue was recently addressed by the New York State Appellate Division in a case involving a police officer who was injured on "barrier truck detail" when she fell off the back of a police flatbed truck while loading wooden police barriers. The officer sued the City of New York and the New York City Police Department to recover damages under the aforementioned statute, 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.

In addressing the officer's case, the Court found 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.

This is a very important decision for our City's firefighters and police officers because it 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. Perhaps more importantly, this decision lays the foundation for a right of recovery when a firefighter or police officer is injured due to an unsafe condition at a station house, during a training exercise, or while utilizing departmental vehicles and equipment.  

If you or someone you know has been injured in the line of duty as a firefighter or police officer, contact our office to learn about your rights.