Blog

When a ceiling collapse s in a New York City apartment, the shock and pain can feel overwhelming. You might be resting in bed or cooking in your kitchen when heavy drywall and wet plaster suddenly come crash ing down. These dangerous events rarely happen out of nowhere. Most ceiling collapses occur after weeks or months of unaddressed water leaks from upper floors or damage d roof membranes. Key Takeaways Under NYC Administrative Code Section 27-2005 and Real Property Law Section 235-b, landlords must repair chronic water leaks to maintain habitability. Official 311 service request logs and HPD violation notices serve as vital evidence to establish constructive notice in ceiling collapse personal injury claims. Under NYC Local Law 71, open Class B and Class C HPD violations carry daily civil penalties. As a top NYC personal injury lawyer, our firm helps injured tenants hold negligent property owners accountable. New York law places a clear legal duty on building owners to maintain structural safety and fix leaks promptly. Therefore, if your landlord ignored repeated warnings about water damage, you can take action. You can build a strong personal injury claim using 311 complaint histories, municipal inspection logs, and official violations. Understanding Landlord Legal Duties Under New York Law New York landlords must keep their residential properties safe and structural. Under the New York City Housing Maintenance Code, found in NYC Administrative Code Section 27-2005, property owners must maintain their premises in good repair. Similarly, New York Real Property Law Section 235-b establishes the warranty of habitability for every residential lease. This law guarantees that your apartment remains safe, clean, and fit for human living. Consequently, when a landlord permits water to leak through ceiling plaster continuously, they violate state statutes and city regulations. Moisture degrades drywall, weakens lath fasteners, and ultimately triggers a catastrophic ceiling collapse. When property owners neglect these fundamental duties, injured tenants have the right to seek financial compensation. How HPD Classifies Water Leaks and Structural Hazards The NYC Department of Housing Preservation and Development enforces safety regulations across all five boroughs. When tenants call 311 to report ceiling damage or active plumbing leaks, HPD sends inspectors to evaluate the property. The agency classifies ceiling hazards and water leaks into specific categories of severity. Active water leaks fall under Class B hazardous violations. However, when structural damage creates an imminent threat of collapse, HPD issues Class C immediately hazardous violations for certain conditions. Class C violations have varying correction periods (0, 14, 21, or 24 hours) depending on the specific type of violation to protect building residents. Civil Penalties for Ignoring NYC Building Violations City leaders established strict monetary penalties to force negligent landlords to complete timely repairs. Under NYC Local Law 71, open HPD violations served after December 8, 2023, carry significant daily financial penalties. Civil fines range from $75 to $500, plus an extra $25 to $125 per day for uncorrected Class B violations. Additionally, unaddressed Class C violations trigger severe penalties that accumulate daily until the owner certifies complete repairs. Also, if a landlord ignores urgent notices, HPD can execute repairs through its Emergency Repair Program and bill the building owner directly. These recorded penalties create a clear official paper trail showing that management knew about the danger. Establishing Notice in Ceiling Collapse Claims To win a personal injury case after a ceiling collapse, you must establish that the landlord had notice of the defect. In legal terms, notice means the property owner knew or should have known about the dangerous condition before the collapse occurred. You can prove actual notice if you sent written emails or text messages to management. However, attorneys frequently establish constructive notice by examining public municipal records. Constructive notice means the condition existed long enough that a reasonable landlord should have discovered and fixed it. Experienced lawyers subpoena historical NYC 311 service request logs and official HPD inspection reports. These public documents prove that management neglected chronic moisture issues over an extended timeframe. Key Legal Precedents Supporting Injured Tenants New York courts consistently hold landlords accountable when maintenance records show neglected water intrusion. For instance, in Torres v. 716-720 West 180th St. Heights Assocs. LLC, decided in the New York County Supreme Court on March 10, 2025, the court granted summary judgment on liability to an injured tenant. Maintenance records established that management had clear notice of recurring upstairs leaks before the kitchen ceiling collapsed. Similarly, in a case decided in the Kings County Civil Court, an important evidentiary standard was affirmed. The court ruled that official printed HPD violation records serve as sufficient prima facie evidence of open hazardous conditions. Consequently, injured tenants can prove existing building violations without requiring live inspector testimony at trial. Real Settlement Values in Ceiling Collapse Lawsuits When an apartment ceiling collapses, falling debris can cause concussion, spinal trauma, shoulder tears, or traumatic brain injury. Settlement amounts reflect the severity of your physical injuries, medical bills, lost wages, and landlord culpability. Historic case results highlight how thorough record gathering directly impacts monetary recovery. For example, trial attorneys at Wingate, Russotti, Shapiro, Moses & Halperin, LLP secured a significant personal injury mediated settlement for a tenant struck by a collapsed kitchen ceiling. The attorneys won this substantial recovery after uncovering 112 building code violations and past Housing Court records. Likewise, trial lawyers at Block O'Toole & Murphy negotiated a substantial settlement for an injured tenant after proving the landlord systematically ignored 311 complaints, management calls, and leak notices. Steps to Take Immediately After a Ceiling Collapse If you or a family member suffers an injury in a Brooklyn construction accident or an apartment ceiling collapse, you must act quickly. Your immediate health and your future legal rights depend on the actions you take right after the event. Following these essential steps will protect your well-being and strengthen your legal claim. Seek immediate medical treatment for your injuries and document every medical consultation carefully. Take clear photos and videos of the collapsed ceiling, fallen debris, water stains, and physical injuries. Report the ceiling collapse to 311 right away so HPD can send an inspector to document the scene. Gather copies of past written communications, text messages, and repair requests sent to your landlord. Avoid signing any settlement releases or giving recorded statements to the landlord's insurance adjuster. Consult an experienced NYC personal injury lawyer to evaluate your rights and preserve critical evidence. How Attorneys Use 311 Data to Prove Negligence Filing a complaint through 311 creates a permanent, time-stamped government record that building owners cannot erase or alter. When you contact 311, city operators log your specific complaint regarding water leaks, sagging plaster, or dangerous ceilings. HPD inspectors then visit the property to record formal code violations against the landlord. Your attorney will obtain these official records through formal discovery and Freedom of Information Law requests. Consequently, your legal team can show insurance adjusters or jury members that management knew about the water leak for weeks. This objective documentation disproves common landlord claims that the collapse happened suddenly without warning. Frequently Asked Questions About NYC Ceiling Collapses Navigating a personal injury claim while recovering from painful injuries can feel daunting. Below, our legal team answers common questions that injured New York tenants ask after an apartment ceiling collapse. Can I sue my landlord if I never filed a 311 report before the collapse? Yes, you can still file a personal injury lawsuit against your landlord even without prior 311 calls. You can establish notice through text messages, emails, written letters, or tenant complaints from neighboring apartments. Additionally, past work orders or physical evidence of longstanding mold and water rot can prove constructive notice. What if the leak came from an upstairs tenant's overflowing bathtub? Your attorney will investigate whether the upstairs tenant or the building owner bears primary legal responsibility. If the building owner failed to fix known plumbing defects or delayed emergency repairs, the landlord remains liable for structural failures. In many cases, multiple parties share responsibility for the resulting damage. If you suffered injuries due to a neglected ceiling leak, our experienced legal team stands ready to fight for your recovery. Contact our office today for a free consultation to discuss your rights and pursue the full compensation you deserve. Sources New York State Senate, New York Real Property Law Section 235-b NYC Department of Housing Preservation and Development, HPD Notice of Violation Classes and Local Law 71 Penalties This article was drafted with AI assistance. Please verify all claims and information for accuracy. The content is for informational purposes only and does not constitute professional advice. Free Case Consultation Injured in an accident? Speak directly with an experienced NYC personal injury attorney at Rosenberg, Minc, Falkoff & Wolff. Your consultation is free, confidential, and risk-free. Start Your Free Case Review No obligation - No upfront fees - You don't pay unless we win Follow RMFW Law for legal insights and case results: Facebook Instagram X Pinterest Yelp YouTube Gary Silverstein Gary Silverstein has been a partner of Rosenberg, Minc, Falkoff & Wolff since 2001, and an associate of the firm since 1989. Mr. Silverstein graduated with a Bachelor of Science degree from State University of New York College at Oneonta in 1983. Mr. Silverstein holds a degree of Juris Doctor from the University of Miami School of Law, having graduated in 1988.

Navigating Sidewalk Accidents in NYC: Your Guide to Liability and Rights New York City's sidewalks are the arteries of our vibrant metropolis. Millions of people walk them daily. However, these vital pathways can sometimes hide dangers, leading to unexpected slip and fall accidents. A seemingly minor crack or uneven slab can cause serious injuries. If you've been hurt on a defective sidewalk, you might wonder who is responsible. This question is often complex in NYC, as specific laws govern sidewalk maintenance and liability. Consequently, understanding these rules is crucial for anyone seeking justice after an accident. Understanding the Shift: NYC Administrative Code § 7-210 For many years, the City of New York held primary responsibility for maintaining its sidewalks. This meant suing the city was often the first step in a sidewalk accident case. However, everything changed on September 14, 2003. On that date, NYC Administrative Code § 7-210 took effect. This pivotal law dramatically shifted the burden of sidewalk maintenance and liability. Specifically, it transferred this responsibility from the City of New York to the owners of properties abutting sidewalks. Therefore, most property owners in New York City are now legally obligated to maintain their sidewalks in a reasonably safe condition. This law aims to ensure safer pedestrian environments. Property owners must keep their sidewalks free from defects, including cracks, unevenness, holes, and other dangerous conditions. Failure to do so can lead to liability if someone is injured due to a hazardous sidewalk. However, there are important exceptions to this rule. For instance, owners of one, two, or three-family owner-occupied residential properties are generally exempt from this liability shift. Furthermore, the City retains responsibility for certain sidewalk conditions, such as those caused by city tree roots or utility covers. Knowing these distinctions is vital for your case. The "Trivial Defect" Doctrine: Not Every Imperfection Leads to Liability Even if a sidewalk has a defect, it doesn't automatically guarantee a successful personal injury claim. New York courts recognize what's known as the "trivial defect" doctrine. This doctrine acknowledges that not every minor imperfection or unevenness on a sidewalk constitutes a dangerous condition for which a property owner can be held liable. Essentially, some defects are considered too small or insignificant to be legally actionable. This principle prevents endless litigation over every tiny bump or crack. Consequently, determining whether a defect is "trivial" is often a central point of contention in sidewalk accident cases. Courts consider various factors when making this determination. These factors include the size, shape, and appearance of the defect. Additionally, they assess whether the defect has characteristics of a "trap" or "snare." The visibility of the defect is also important. Was it openly and obviously discoverable? Lighting conditions at the time of the accident play a role. Moreover, the presence or absence of warning signs can be relevant. The location of the defect on the sidewalk, like proximity to a crosswalk, can also influence the court's decision. Finally, evidence of prior accidents at the same location might indicate a non-trivial hazard. Therefore, a thorough investigation of all these elements is essential. For example, a mere difference in elevation of less than an inch might be considered trivial. However, if that same small difference creates an abrupt edge or is obscured, it might not be trivial. The courts carefully examine the specific circumstances of each case. They aim to distinguish between minor, unavoidable irregularities and genuinely hazardous conditions. Therefore, don't assume your injury is without recourse just because the defect seemed small. A seasoned attorney can help evaluate your specific situation and determine if the defect truly was "trivial" under the law. The Importance of "Notice" in Sidewalk Accident Cases Another critical element in many personal injury cases, especially those involving property defects, is "notice." Generally, to hold a property owner or municipality liable for a dangerous condition, they must have had some form of "notice" of the defect. This means they knew or should have known about the hazardous condition but failed to fix it. Notice can be actual or constructive. Actual notice occurs when the property owner was directly informed about the defect. Perhaps someone complained, or they personally observed it. Conversely, constructive notice means the defect existed for a long enough period that the owner should have discovered and remedied it through reasonable inspection. For example, a large crack that has been present for months would likely constitute constructive notice. On the other hand, a fresh pothole that appeared overnight might not. In New York City, a unique system exists for documenting sidewalk defects: the Big Apple Pothole and Sidewalk Protection Committee. This committee maintains maps detailing reported defects throughout the city. If a defect you tripped on was documented on one of these maps prior to your accident, it can serve as powerful evidence of prior notice. This resource can be invaluable for building a strong case. Consequently, our firm often consults these maps during our investigations. What to Do After a Sidewalk Slip and Fall Accident An unexpected fall on an NYC sidewalk can be disorienting and painful. However, your actions immediately following the accident are crucial for protecting your health and any potential legal claim. First and foremost, seek medical attention immediately. Your health is paramount. Even if you feel fine initially, some injuries, like concussions or soft tissue damage, may not manifest symptoms until later. A medical record also provides vital documentation of your injuries, linking them directly to the accident. If you are able and it is safe to do so, try to document the scene. Use your smartphone to take clear photos and videos of the defect that caused your fall. Capture various angles and distances. Include landmarks to show the exact location. Furthermore, if there are any witnesses, kindly ask for their contact information. Their testimony can be invaluable later on. However, do not give statements to the property owner, their insurance company, or anyone else without first speaking to a lawyer. Anything you say could potentially be used against you. Finally, contact an experienced New York City personal injury lawyer as soon as possible. Navigating sidewalk liability laws, including Administrative Code § 7-210 and the trivial defect doctrine, requires specific legal knowledge. A lawyer can investigate the accident, gather evidence, determine who is liable, and ensure your rights are protected. They can handle communications with insurance companies and negotiate on your behalf. This allows you to focus on your recovery without added stress. How RMFW Law Can Help You At RMFW Law, we understand the challenges and anxieties that follow a personal injury. We have dedicated our practice to helping injured New Yorkers navigate complex legal landscapes with compassion and expertise. Our team of trusted NYC personal injury lawyers has extensive experience with sidewalk defect cases. We meticulously investigate every detail, from examining the defect's characteristics to researching property ownership and checking Big Apple maps for prior notice. We work tirelessly to build a strong case on your behalf. We know that suffering an injury due to someone else's negligence is unfair. You deserve clear answers and confident next steps. We will explain your legal options in plain English, ensuring you understand every stage of the process. Our goal is to secure the maximum compensation you deserve for medical bills, lost wages, pain and suffering, and other damages. We handle the legal complexities so you can focus on healing. Your journey to recovery is our priority. Taking Your Confident Next Step If a defective sidewalk in New York City has caused you harm, you don't have to face the legal system alone. The laws surrounding sidewalk liability are intricate, but you have rights. Therefore, reaching out to a knowledgeable attorney is your best course of action. We offer free, no-obligation consultations to discuss your accident and evaluate your case. Let us be your trusted guide through this challenging time. Contact RMFW Law today to schedule your consultation and take the first step towards justice and recovery. Free Case Consultation Injured in an accident? Contact Rosenberg, Minc, Falkoff & Wolff for a free and confidential case review with an experienced NYC personal injury attorney. Contact Us Follow RMFW Law for legal insights and case results: Facebook Instagram X (Twitter) Pinterest Yelp YouTube This article was drafted with AI assistance. Please verify all claims and information for accuracy. The content is for informational purposes only and does not constitute professional advice. Gary Silverstein Gary Silverstein has been a partner of Rosenberg, Minc, Falkoff & Wolff since 2001, and an associate of the firm since 1989. Mr. Silverstein graduated with a Bachelor of Science degree from State University of New York College at Oneonta in 1983. Mr. Silverstein holds a degree of Juris Doctor from the University of Miami School of Law, having graduated in 1988.

Parents in New York City often have to use the services of a daycare provider to care for their child. When doing so, they trust that the center will provide responsible care and ensure that the child does not suffer any hurt. Unfortunately, some daycare facilities do not live up to expectations and negligence of daycare centers is one of the significant causes of injuries and even death of young children. Parents in New York City often have to use the services of a daycare provider to care for their child. When doing so, they trust that the center will provide responsible care and ensure that the child does not suffer any hurt. Unfortunately, some daycare facilities do not live up to expectations and negligence of daycare centers is one of the significant causes of injuries and even death of young children. Having a child injured in a daycare accident can be a huge shock for the parents. The first priority in such situations is always to provide adequate medical care to deal with the injuries the child has suffered. However, it’s vital for families caught in such a situation due to negligence of the daycare center to take all legal measures possible to pursue claims against the service provider. A competent and skilled daycare injury lawyer in New York can help such parents establish accountability of the daycare provider and recover compensation for the injuries sustained by the child. Possible Injuries at Daycare Facilities in New York Although daycare facilities in NYC have employees whose primary responsibility is to care for the children, it is still possible that a child may be left unsupervised for a short time. Some employees may not take their responsibilities very seriously and neglect their duties or fail to provide adequate supervision. In such circumstances, children may suffer playground hurts, or have a fall or ingest toxins. The negligence of an employee at a New York daycare facility can lead to a serious injury to children at the center. Generally, younger children, whose coordination skills are not as developed, are more likely to be hurt compared to older children. If the childcare supervisor leaves the room, children will take the opportunity to climb a higher surface, and this can lead to a fall. If a child tries to use play equipment in the absences of a supervisor, they may accidentally end up hurting another child who is close by. When a childcare worker steps aside for a moment, a baby on the changing station may slip down or fall. In other words, the ineptness of a daycare worker is often the cause for injuries that children suffer at the daycare facility. Several daycare service providers take all necessary precautions to provide safe and high quality care to the children they take in. However, data from the US Department of Health and Human Services shows that in 39 states of the USA, every year, more than 5,000 daycare service providers are found to be liable for child neglect or even abuse. New York Law for Daycare Negligence Under the law in New York, an individual who fails to act to provide the legally necessary degree of care for a given situation is considered to be negligent. Negligence may be of three types based on the circumstances – imputed, contributory, or comparative. When caregivers at a daycare facility provide less than the reasonable standard of caring behavior, it may lead to children being injured or even killed. Unsafe premises, lack of sufficient maintenance of the play areas and equipment, committing acts of violence or abuse against a child and exposing children to dangerous persons or violence on the premises are all examples of negligence by daycare facilities, for which they can be sued. A competent daycare injury lawyer in New York City can help to identify such cases of negligence and help parents get the rightful compensation they deserve. What Constitutes a Case of Daycare Negligence? An injury to children can be shocking for parents, so it’s natural for them to blame the daycare facility. However, not all cases of injury can be attributed to daycare employee negligence. A child who falls while playing on the playground or a kid being hurt in a minor scuffle while playing a contact sport are examples of an ordinary injury; such instances do not constitute negligence. You may have a valid case of negligence by a New York daycare center if your child is subjected to the following: Not given food or water on time Not given medication that is due, or given excess medication or given the wrong/inappropriate medication Denied access to the restroom Diaper is not changed the entire day Left alone when crying instead of being comforted Allowed to leave the premises without supervision Left with older children without supervision Kept in a building that does not comply with local building codes Put into a situation of danger Determining if you have a negligence case can be a complex process. So it is crucial that you seek guidance from an experienced child injury attorney in New York City who can help you decide whether to file a civil lawsuit or a claim to get the compensation you deserve for the suffering your child underwent. Common Children’s Injuries in Daycare Negligence Cases Some of the most common injuries that children suffer due to negligence by a daycare service provider include the following: Brain injury Spinal injury Scarring and disfigurement of the child Injury due to defective products Choking or fractures caused by toys with poor design Child molestation Sexual abuse of the child Playground or amusement park injury Dog bite Premises liability Crib injury or crib death due to negligent caregivers Drowning Injury in a car or automobile or school bus accident Wrongful death Outcomes of Child Injuries in a Daycare Accident When a child is injured in a daycare facility, there is a need to provide medical attention for the physical injuries suffered. Because young children have impressionable minds, there is also often a psychological component of the injury that must also be considered. Some accidents or acts of abuse or molestation can cause severe emotional scars that need years of counseling and therapy for the child to overcome. If the daycare injury has led to a physical deformity or disability, it can pose a challenge to the quality of life for not just the affected child, but for the entire family. Severe injuries that lead to hospitalization or the need for lifelong treatment or rehabilitation take a toll on the finances of the family. Disability or deformity caused by the accident may require the family to make alterations to their house for the benefit of the child’s health. The nature of education that the affected child requires may also change, posing a further challenge to the financial resources of the family. An experienced child injury attorney in New York can help you claim compensation from the responsible parties whose negligence has resulted in your child’s injury. Who is Responsible for Child Injuries in a Daycare Facility? When parents leave their child with a daycare facility, they trust all the employees there to care for their child as promised. However, the negligence of any one of the daycare team – a babysitter, a teacher, a supervisor, the daycare provider – can lead to an injury. In some cases, daycare facilities use products or services that are considered safe. However, if these are not manufactured, installed, or maintained in the proper manner, the concerned entities can also be held responsible for the injuries sustained by your child. Daycare facility owners often try to deflect the blame of an injury to the actions of the child in a bid to escape responsibility. Their insurance service providers may seek to convince you to accept some monetary settlement instead of filing a claim for damages. It is vital you remember that any such arrangements will almost definitely be far lesser than the damages you are entitled to under the law. An experienced and competent child daycare accident attorney in NYC can help you pursue your legal claims to get the compensation to which you are legally entitled. Speak to an Experienced NYC Child Injury Lawyer Today If your child has been injured by the negligence of a daycare service provider, or due to a defective product on their premises, the daycare facility can be held responsible for the injury. To find out the compensation to which you are entitled under the law, get in touch today with our experienced child injury attorneys in NYC at Rosenberg, Minc, Falkoff & Wolff, LLP at 212-344-1000 to schedule a free consultation. With several decades of experience in dealing with cases of negligence and wrongful death by daycare centers in New York City, our team of lawyers can help you build your case in the most effective manner. Depending on what are the specific requirements in your child injury case, we will help you deal with insurance providers, get your child the best resources for recovery, and hire experts in child health to testify in your case. Having a child injured due to negligence of a daycare facility you trusted can be a traumatic experience for parents. Get in touch with our team of New York daycare accident attorneys today to ensure that you get the compensation you rightfully deserve for all the suffering and losses your family has undergone. Robert Wolff Robert H. Wolff is a member and partner of the prestigious New York City Personal Injury Law Firm of Rosenberg Minc, Falkoff, & Wolff, LLP. Mr. Wolff graduated from SUNY Albany, cum laude, in 1978 with a B.A. in Psychology and American History. Thereafter, he attended St. John’s University School of Law, where he was a member of the Moot Court Team and the Criminal Law Society, graduating in 1981 with a Juris Doctor’s degree.

ESCALATOR ACCIDENT LEAVES 7 PEOPLE INJURED BROOKLYN, NEW YORK (December 20, 2016) –  At least seven people were injured when an escalator malfunctioned at the Atlantic Terminal Mall. The shoppers were inside of a target when the accident happened. They were walking down the escalator when it was motionless. All of a sudden the escalator turned on and threw one of person near the top of their balance. That person fell forward hitting several other people and causing a chain reaction. Most of the people that fell sustained only minor injured. However, at least two people were seriously injured. Paramedics arrived at the scene and transported people to a nearby hospital. The RMFW extends its thoughts and prayers to all of those who have injured in this accident. Robert Wolff Robert H. Wolff is a member and partner of the prestigious New York City Personal Injury Law Firm of Rosenberg Minc, Falkoff, & Wolff, LLP. Mr. Wolff graduated from SUNY Albany, cum laude, in 1978 with a B.A. in Psychology and American History. Thereafter, he attended St. John’s University School of Law, where he was a member of the Moot Court Team and the Criminal Law Society, graduating in 1981 with a Juris Doctor’s degree.

BUILDING OWNER MAY BE LIABLE FOR UNSAFE PREMISES QUEENS, NEW YORK (July 6, 2015) A 50-year-old superintendent was killed in the boiler room of the apartment he worked at in American Gardens, according to CBS News. Authorities have been able to identify the man that was murdered as Gary Nelson. The attack took place in the afternoon on Monday at 123-27 Merrick Boulevard. Police are still trying to identify a person who may be responsible for the killing. Gary Nelson was transported to Jamaica Hospital where he was later pronounced dead. Residents described Nelson as a good man and were in shock that he died in the attack. The investigation into the stabbing is ongoing. New York landlords have an obligation to keep their properties safe and to warn visitors of any latent dangers on the property. A landlord may have a duty to keep its residents safe from intruders. This obligation could be increased by a number of factors including a history of crime at an apartment building or if the building is located in a high crime area. There are many other factors that investigators into this crime will need to determine. Did this apartment have surveillance videos to act as a deterrence for criminals? Was there adequate lighting on the premises? Did the apartment building have any system in place for checking in guests? Typically New York law bars employees from filing a lawsuit against their employers. However, New York’s Workers’ Compensation Law §11 outlines certain exceptions involving "grave injuries" for which an employer may be involved in a lawsuit against a third party. A third party in this case may be an outside company hired to provide security for the building or a company which installed the building's locks. An example of a "grave injury" may include death. HELPING THOSE IN NEED BY RAISING AWARENESS At the RMFW Law Firm we believe in giving back to the community and helping those who are in need. If you or someone that you know has been affected by this accident, we will gladly help raise awareness of any gofundme campaign set up to support the victim or their family. We can link to it in this post which is then spread across our social media platforms. You can send your request to: gofundmerequest@gmail.com. Our staff at the RMFW Law Firm were absolutely heartbroken to learn about the senseless murder of Gary Nelson. Our thoughts and prayers are with his family as they mourn such an incredible loss. We encourage anyone that may have useful information to contact police immediately. I f there is anything at all we can do for the family as they continue to piece together what happened, our phones are always on 212-344-1000. Robert Wolff Robert H. Wolff is a member and partner of the prestigious New York City Personal Injury Law Firm of Rosenberg Minc, Falkoff, & Wolff, LLP. Mr. Wolff graduated from SUNY Albany, cum laude, in 1978 with a B.A. in Psychology and American History. Thereafter, he attended St. John’s University School of Law, where he was a member of the Moot Court Team and the Criminal Law Society, graduating in 1981 with a Juris Doctor’s degree.

Duty of Care When a person is injured on third party's property, he or she may file a claim for damages. Premises liability defines the obligation the owner of a property has toward those who visit and use the property. Known as duty of care, the property owner needs to maintain the property in such a condition that it is considered safe for use by visitors. When the condition is not safe for standard use by visitors, an accident leading to injury on the property can lead to a premises liability claim. Different Types of Visitors There are three main types of visitors who enter a property. They are: Invitees - The business owner invites a person to visit the property to conduct business. The visitor is an invitee. Examples: customers, salesmen. Licensees - The owner invites a person for social purposes. People who visit the owner for relaxing and chatting are licensees. Family, friends, and neighbors are licensees. Trespassers - A person who visits a property without an invite from the owner is a trespasser. Who can be on a Property? The owner, agents, and employees also known as invitors extend an invitation to people to be on a property for a particular reason. Invitations include: Written invitation – Written invitations are in the form of a letter, email, ad, poster, or card. The invite's intention is to have people on the property. Spoken invitation – A word-of-mouth invite is a spoken invitation. This can be over the telephone and in a direct personal meeting. Implied invitation – A continuous visitation that follows a regular invite such as written or spoken. The visitor is not expected to receive an invite every time he or she needs to visit the property. Scope of Invitation An invitee can be on a property on a mutually beneficial point. The visitor or invitee enters the premises for conducting a business transaction – purchase of goods, services, and merchandise. The invitee’s status and the property owner’s liability can change if the invitee strays from the scope of invitation. In normal course, the property owner is expected to provide a safe environment for the invitees on the property. If the invitee is aware of a situation on the property that can cause injury, the owner is not likely to be held liable if such situations cause injuries to invitees. Not all those invited to enter upon a property are recognized as invitees. The invitee’s status is not absolute and is only limited by the property owner’s scope of invitation. If in case the invitee strays outside the invitation’s scope, the status of the invitee changes. If the invitee involuntarily strays outside the scope of invitation, the invitee still retains his/her status. But if the invitee makes a voluntary decision to move outside the scope of original invitation, the invitee loses the status. Were you injured on a third party’s property and do you wish to know if you can claim for damages from the property owner? Call our New York premises liability attorneys at Rosenberg, Minc, Falkoff, & Wolff (RMFW) who have law offices located in Astoria, Queens, New York City, and two locations in Brooklyn. RMFW attorneys have settled numerous premises liability claims. We know how to win. Many clients have won tens of thousands of dollars and more working with us. We have won millions for our clients over the years. So call 212-344-1000right away. This list is not that special. You can be on it too. Someone else did you wrong; it is time to enact some legal muscle to make this situation right. Robert Wolff Robert H. Wolff is a member and partner of the prestigious New York City Personal Injury Law Firm of Rosenberg Minc, Falkoff, & Wolff, LLP. Mr. Wolff graduated from SUNY Albany, cum laude, in 1978 with a B.A. in Psychology and American History. Thereafter, he attended St. John’s University School of Law, where he was a member of the Moot Court Team and the Criminal Law Society, graduating in 1981 with a Juris Doctor’s degree.

In an urban community like New York City, injury lawyers must consider the real risks people face on a daily basis. Many of these are related to the busy, congested streets that residents have to navigate in all five boroughs and around the general metro area. In a sense, evaluating public health and safety involves a very concrete kind of analysis of spatial areas. The city streets are so important because they're used for so many things. Motor vehicles have to contend with bicycles and pedestrians. Service providers have to navigate areas to reach customers. Individual residents have to commute to and from work, run errands and otherwise travel through the same infrastructure. Negligence In Using Curb Areas One way to look at the city street is to separate out the vehicle transport area from the ‘living area,’ or, in other words, the sidewalk area that pedestrians share with vendors, bus stops and other installations along a city block. In really looking closely at how these areas are used, you can see that the use of curb and sidewalk areas can be as important as the use of the actual street. Traffic collisions and conventional car accidents happen mostly in the actual lanes of travel, but many other types of pedestrian accidents and injuries happen away from the street in public areas. A Cluttered Landscape When individuals or businesses leave items unattended on a sidewalk, they are further complicating an already complex picture. One example is piles of garbage piled up on a curb area. These obstacles can limit sight distance for motor vehicles, present slip and fall dangers for pedestrians or otherwise endanger those who use the area regularly. The same goes for loose construction materials, discarded or abandoned home goods or anything else that will pose an obstacle on a walkway. That’s not to mention the severe and sometimes tragic consequences facing those who throw an item out of a window onto the ground below, which is a flagrantly neglectful and reckless act that will lead to major liability. When New York City personal injury lawyers are called on to represent their clients’ interests in court, they will look at all of these types of problems to determine if any negligence or inattention to public safety contributed to an accident. Parties responsible for leaving garbage, junk or unattended items on or near a street will often have some liability and responsibility to compensate injury victims. Let New York City Injury Attorneys Help You New York City residents who are injured in an accident in a public space can call the lawyers at Rosenberg, Minc, Falkoff & Wolff. We understand how to bring personal injury cases through local courts and we have experience helping New York City families to manage their affairs by pursuing money for care and recovery for a family member. Let us help you move a personal injury case forward in New York. Gary Silverstein Gary Silverstein has been a partner of Rosenberg, Minc, Falkoff & Wolff since 2001, and an associate of the firm since 1989. Mr. Silverstein graduated with a Bachelor of Science degree from State University of New York College at Oneonta in 1983. Mr. Silverstein holds a degree of Juris Doctor from the University of Miami School of Law, having graduated in 1988.

Can you use a property owner fixing a defective problem on his property as evidence to show that what occurred was improper and careless? Showing Liability of Property Owner Let us say you slip and fall on somebody's property, and you want to claim compensation for your injuries. You will have to show that the property owner knew or should have known about the defective condition that caused you to fall. Many times after an accident has taken place, the property owner will go ahead and fix that defective condition for the obvious reason that they do not want somebody else to be injured due to that dangerous condition. The defective condition could be a hole in the ground, or something else significant that is posing a danger to anybody who is walking on the property. You cannot Use it as Evidence According to law, you are not permitted to take into evidence the fact of the property owner fixing the dangerous condition. You cannot tell the jury that the property went ahead and fixed the defective condition, and that is clear-cut evidence showing that there was a problem there before. Well, in law, you are not permitted to use that as evidence that there was a problem before. The property owner fixing a defective condition after somebody has already been in an accident and made that issue known to everyone in the area is known as "subsequent remedial repair". Subsequent means after and remedial means the person is trying to fix the problem. Actually, it would be wonderful, if you could use that action taken by the owner as evidence―to show the jury the fact that the property owner fixed the problem after you have already been injured which means the owner is in essence admitting guilt. You would want this to be sufficient evidence to prove that the property owner is responsible for your injuries. What can You Do? However, unfortunately, the law in New York does not allow you to do that. Hence, instead, you will have to go back and look at it in one of two ways: You have to prove that you are more likely right than wrong that the property knew there was a dangerous condition You argue that the property owner should have known about the dangerous condition The fact that he fixed that particular part of his property that you were injured on, cannot be used as proof that he knew that this dangerous condition existed. You may have pointed out this flaw. The action taken by the owner does not admit guilt. In fact, he may be doing his civic duty and does not want anyone else to get hurt. If you slip and fall on snow and ice, or on defective property and you have suffered significant harm or injury, you can claim compensation by filing a personal injury lawsuit against the property owner. The property owner has an obligation to keep his property in a reasonably safe condition so that people visiting the property are not harmed. At trial, you will have to prove the property owner failed in this obligation and because of that, you were injured. The property owner may have remedied the dangerous condition after your accident to prevent further injury to passerby or customers. However, the property owner fixing a defective condition cannot be used as evidence to prove the liability of the property owner. Gary Silverstein Gary Silverstein has been a partner of Rosenberg, Minc, Falkoff & Wolff since 2001, and an associate of the firm since 1989. Mr. Silverstein graduated with a Bachelor of Science degree from State University of New York College at Oneonta in 1983. Mr. Silverstein holds a degree of Juris Doctor from the University of Miami School of Law, having graduated in 1988.

Ice skating can be a rather dangerous sport where a person may be prone to many injuries. However, just because someone has suffered from an accident while ice skating, that doesn’t mean that it is grounds for a personal injury claim. There are a few circumstances where another person or the owner of an ice skating ring may be held legally responsible for an ice skating accident. Liability for Ice Skating Rink Operators It is the duty of an ice skating operator to keep the ice skating ring safe for patrons. This duty extends towards the general maintenance of the premises and equipment. An operator can be held liable for negligence if they fail to meet these obligations. But consider the dangerous nature of ice skating, an operator is not under a duty to prevent all possible accidents. It is important that the operator take steps to fix or prevent dangerous situations or conditions that they should know or know about. It isn’t enough for them just to post warnings or notices. Apart from failing to identify and amend a risk, an operator might also be held responsible for any injuries caused directly by the negligence of an employee. Liability of Other Skaters If other skaters were responsible for injuring the plaintiff, they might also be held liable under a negligence or intentional tort theory. The defendant has to have intended to cause some kind of harm to the plaintiff for an intentional tort case to succeed. Defenses to Ice Skating Personal Injury Lawsuits A plaintiff might lose a personal injury case under the doctrine of “assumption of the risk,” if the defendant is able to prove that the plaintiff exposed themselves knowingly to the possibility of the injury before it occurred. Anyone that skates is automatically assuming the risk that accompanies the attempt to glide across a frozen, hard surface on thin metal blades. There is a certain amount of falling, slipping, and bumping into other ice skaters that are bound to occur. But this assumption of the risk cannot be applied to every ice skating injury. Having said that, an ice skater does not usually assume that another skater will behave in an unreasonable manner or an operator will fail to take reasonable measures to prevent an injury. The defendant will win the case outright if the assumption of the risk doctrine applies. Comparative or contributory negligence is a similar defense. This means that if a plaintiff’s negligence contributed to the injury, the amount of damages that the defendant owes is reduced or eliminated entirely. For instance, an operator may have negligently permitted a flaw to remain on the ice, but the plaintiff might have been trying to skate far beyond his abilities when the slip and fall occurred. If in a personal injury lawsuit, the operator is found to be 60% responsible and the plaintiff was found to be 40% responsible, the plaintiff will only be awarded 60% of the final damages. Gary Silverstein Gary Silverstein has been a partner of Rosenberg, Minc, Falkoff & Wolff since 2001, and an associate of the firm since 1989. Mr. Silverstein graduated with a Bachelor of Science degree from State University of New York College at Oneonta in 1983. Mr. Silverstein holds a degree of Juris Doctor from the University of Miami School of Law, having graduated in 1988.

In the area of premises liability law, a landowner is charged with the duty to act as a reasonable person and maintain its property in a reasonably safe condition in view of all circumstances, including the likelihood of injuries to others, the seriousness of the injury and the burden of avoiding the risk. A property owner can be liable for dangerous conditions on the property which cause injury. when the property owner either knew or should have known about the dangerous condition but did not act to fix the hazard or warn others about the danger. When the owner actually knows about the danger, they are said to have actual notice. If the owner does not actually know of a danger but “should have known” about the danger, this is called constructive notice. Over the years, the New York courts have explored the “actual or constructive notice” requirement, and case law in this area has been relatively static. In the seminal case is Gordon v. American Museum of Natural History, the New York Court of Appeals established that for an owner or landlord to be held liable for an allegedly defective or hazardous condition, they must have had either actual or constructive notice of the alleged defect. To constitute constructive notice, the Court said, a defect must be visible and apparent and it must exist for a sufficient length of time, prior to the accident, to permit the defendant’s employees to discover and remedy it. Awareness of a general condition is insufficient to prove a prima facie case of negligence against a defendant. Constructive notice may be established in various methods, including the passage of time, the failure to inspect and if the condition is recurrent. Case law holds a passage of time from one inspection to another may constitute constructive notice. For example, in Villaurel v. City of New York, 59 AD3d 709, 873 NYS2d 740 (2nd Dept. 2009), a bus passenger slipped and fell on ice while alighting from a bus. The evidence showed the ice to be present for at least 30 minutes prior to the fall with the last inspection being 18 hours prior. The Court found that it was reasonable for a jury to infer the ice existed for a substantial period of time prior to the accident. See also Maldonado v. City of New York, 93 AD3d 407,939 NYS2d 60 (1st Dept. 2012) (morning inspection, evening accident is sufficient passage of time to infer constructive notice); Negri v. Stop and Shop, 65 NY2d 625, 491 NYS2d 151, 480 NE2d 740 (1985) (30 minutes sufficient passage of time to infer constructive notice). Case law also states that constructive notice may also be imputed to a landowner through the landowner’s duty of reasonable care to conduct periodic inspections of the area of the potential defect. If no program of inspection is put in place, constructive notice is imputed. See Perez v. 2305 University Avenue, LLC, 78 AD3d 462, 911 NYS2d 38 (1st Dept. 2010); Hayes v. Riverbend Housing Company, Inc., 40 AD3d 500, 836 NYS2d (1st Dept. 2007). The failure of a premises owner to conduct a diligent inspection constitutes negligence if the inspection would have revealed the defect. See Hayes, supra; Personius v. Mann, 20 AD3d 616, 798 NYS2d 195 (3rd Dept. 2005). Constructive notice is an important tool to successfully litigate a premises liability case. Finally, case law establishes that constructive notice may be established if the injury producing condition is a dangerous recurring condition. Where a landowner has actual knowledge of a recurrent dangerous condition in a specific area, it may be charged with constructive notice of each specific recurrence of it. See Agosto v. City of New Rochelle, 114 AD3d 625, 979 NYS2d 689 (2nd Dept. 2014) In sum, landowners have a duty to know the condition of the property, and if they are to win their case in the pre-trial stages, must supply testimony as to when it last inspected the area and what it looked like at the time of the last inspection. However, if it is established that the landowner created the condition, neither actual nor constructive notice is required in the proof of a case. Since it is not always possible to prove creation or actual notice of a dangerous condition, The office of Rosenberg, Minc, Falkoff and Wolff performs careful and thorough investigations that enable the injured party to show that the defendant either knew or should have known about the dangerous condition but did not take reasonable steps to fix it, thus allowing for a successful recovery. Gary Silverstein Gary Silverstein has been a partner of Rosenberg, Minc, Falkoff & Wolff since 2001, and an associate of the firm since 1989. Mr. Silverstein graduated with a Bachelor of Science degree from State University of New York College at Oneonta in 1983. Mr. Silverstein holds a degree of Juris Doctor from the University of Miami School of Law, having graduated in 1988.

In New York City natural gas is customarily delivered by Consolidated Edison, commonly referred to as Con Edison or Con Ed, which is one of the largest investor-owned energy companies in the United States. Con Ed provided gas to the apartment building that exploded in East Harlem on March 12th. Natural gas is a highly volatile substance and an unchecked gas leak can explode, even bringing down an entire building, as we saw in recent events. Typically, Kyrsten is responsible for maintaining the integrity of the piping up to the gas meter, which would be located inside or outside of the front of the building. That would make Con Ed responsible for any leak that was not caused by an outside contractor if it occurred before the meter entry. When determining responsibility for a gas explosion a lot of focus is on the interior of the building. The landlord, building owner, or building manager would be responsible for the integrity of the piping inside any building from the meter throughout the walls of the interior. If there is a leak present in the interior of the building the landlord is typically responsible. An exception would be if a tenant in a multiple dwelling somehow turned on the gas valve in the apartment with a stove or oven and failed to turn it off. Often gas leaks are associated with plumbing repairs and buildings undergoing construction renovations. In such a case, our New York City personal injury law firm would sue the building owner, general contractor, and the gas provider to ensure that all the potential responsible parties are brought before the court. In a case like the recent incident our New York City injury attorneys would begin a claim for clients for their personal possessions that were lost in the explosion, as well as any injuries that resulted from the explosion and the costs for relocation. When a gas leak causes an explosion, the New York City building department will conduct an investigation to determine the source of the leak and the potential responsible individuals. The New York City injury attorneys at our firm typically hire an expert to conduct a forensic investigation on behalf of our clients to determine the legally responsible parties involved in the explosion. If you are the victim of a gas explosion or fire it is essential to immediately contact a New York City injury attorney to guide you through the complex recovery process. You can reach the New York City injury attorneys at Rosenberg, Minc, Falkoff & Wolff online or by calling 212-344-1000. Gary Silverstein Gary Silverstein has been a partner of Rosenberg, Minc, Falkoff & Wolff since 2001, and an associate of the firm since 1989. Mr. Silverstein graduated with a Bachelor of Science degree from State University of New York College at Oneonta in 1983. Mr. Silverstein holds a degree of Juris Doctor from the University of Miami School of Law, having graduated in 1988.

Those who slip and fall on someone else’s property in New York have the right to sue. This is due to the fact that property owners have a legal responsibility to maintain a safe environment for everyone. When this duty has not been met, and a person is injured due to a slip and fall, the owner could end up slapped with a premises liability lawsuit. However, a recent legislative proposal aims to decrease the number of slip-and-fall lawsuits filed against bowling alley owners. The idea behind this is that the smoking ban has led to more people going outside with bowling shoes on to smoke. These smokers than bring in elements from the outside — like rain and snow — and then end up slipping and falling. However, not ones to just let people’s rights be taken away, the Trial Lawyers Association came prepared with many questions about this proposal, which led to the bill being placed on hold for the time being. The bill would require bowling alley owners to post a sign warning that it is dangerous to go outside with bowling shoes on. In return, if someone did slip and fall after coming in from outside, the person who is injured would not be able to file a lawsuit against the owner of the bowling alley. In short, if the bill is passed, if a sign is posted, owners cannot be sued when a bowler slips and falls due to a substance — such as ice or water — that was acquired from outside. Of course though, this type of bill raises many concerns. Not only does it take away a person’s right to sue, but what if someone was injured due to another bowler tracking in rain water from outside? Would this type of loophole lead to employees no longer quickly cleaning up spills? Who would pay for the expensive medical bills that often follow a slip-and-fall accident? At this point, the bill did not go before the Senate Consumer Affairs Committee as there were questions that still need to be answered. Source: Albany Times Union, “ Proposal right down their alley,” Rick Karlin, May 21, 2013 Robert Wolff Robert H. Wolff is a member and partner of the prestigious New York City Personal Injury Law Firm of Rosenberg Minc, Falkoff, & Wolff, LLP. Mr. Wolff graduated from SUNY Albany, cum laude, in 1978 with a B.A. in Psychology and American History. Thereafter, he attended St. John’s University School of Law, where he was a member of the Moot Court Team and the Criminal Law Society, graduating in 1981 with a Juris Doctor’s degree.