Blog

Many a times during trial, the opposition may take objection to the prosecuting attorney's line of questioning or presentation. The judge has only a few minutes to decide whether or not he wants to allow the objection or overrule it. Now, before the Judge gives his decision, the defense lawyer can ask to have a 'sidebar' with the Judge and deliberate a little more on the objection raised. A sidebar is a private area in the courtroom near the Judge's bench where the attorneys and the Judge can have discussions and hear legal arguments. You must have seen it in movies―judges and lawyers having heated arguments away from prying ears and eyes. But have you ever wondered why this little tete-a-tete is important in a legal proceeding? Why a Sidebar is Necessary? During the course of a trial, there are many issues that cannot be publicly talked about in front of an empanelled jury. If the defense feels strongly about a certain topic that the prosecuting attorney is hell bent on bringing up in court, the defense can ask for a private discussion with the judge to shed light on their reasons for keeping this particular topic away from the jury. The judge can of course ask the court reporter to strike a particularly offensive statement or piece of evidence, and the jury would obviously be instructed to not let what they have heard or seen affect their line of reasoning. But it seldom works this way. The jury members too are human after all, and what they see or hear in court obviously has an impact on their final decision. This is why a sidebar is so important. The lawyers can argue on legal issues and taboo topics without involving the jury members and thus be at ease discussing their objections and counterarguments without worrying about how it will all affect the outcome of the trial. In a trial, the judge is the 'ruler of law' while the jury works as the 'finders of fact'. They do not have anything to do with the legal issues and involving them in legal arguments will only cause more harm than good. So whenever the presiding judge or any of the attorneys feel like they need to hammer out a sore topic in private, they can ask for a sidebar meeting without confounding the jury members. The legal arguments that the judge and the lawyers enter into are then not recorded as part of the official transcript of the trial and the topics that the defense, or the prosecution, wants to keep away from the jury's ears can be successfully kept under wraps. Who Else can Use a Sidebar? It is not only the lawyers or the judge who can call for a sidebar. Court appointed interpreters could also ask for a sidebar when they feel that there might be a mistrial in the offing due to certain procedural mistakes or because the interpreter is not allowed to do their work properly. Other members of the court to bring to the judge’s attention important matters on which a legal ruling may be necessary can also use a sidebar.

In a second incident of its kind a speed cyclist has caused another death in Central Park. East Harlem resident Jason Marshall, 31, an accomplished baritone saxophonist, has instead of bringing sweet music, brought agony and frustration to the family of 59 year old Jill Tarlov and her family. Marshall, an avid cyclist and owner of a pricey Jamis Eclipse, slammed his racing bike into Tarlov in Central Park Thursday, Sept. 18 th, causing serious injuries that left her brain dead and now on life support. Speeding cyclists can injure you gravely and are something you should watch out for. Prior to his deadly ride, Marshall was seen speeding down a lane restricted to pedestrians and child bicyclists, and crossed over to a lane designated for vehicles in the park’s West Drive. As any personal injury attorney will tell you, cycling is not permitted in either of these lanes. A Cyclist Making Up His Own Rules Tarlov, a former executive at 1010 WINS and wife of Michael Wittman, a senior vice president at CBS, is a mother of two college-age children. She was out shopping for her daughter’s birthday present around 4:30pm on West Drive when Marshall came pedaling along at top speed. According to law enforcement sources and a witness, he cautioned Tarlov to get out of the way which she obviously did not hear. Tarlov stepped off the curb just when the Marshall came barreling toward the traffic light on West 63 rd Street, which ended in the fatal accident. She was declared brain dead on reaching the New York-Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell Medical Center. The cyclist admits to being in the wrong lane but that is a little bit too late. According to a 21 year old witness and visiting student from England’s University of Exeter, Marshall was speeding and didn’t appear as though he tried to stop. A Huge Difference in Charges Personal accident lawyers are seeing a spate in bike accident cases as athletic cyclists take the chance to pedal in car lanes in a bid to travel faster rather than stick to bike lanes. But causing an injury to an innocent person just to save a few minutes comes with a huge price. Jason Marshall, for instance, could face charges of assault or reckless homicide or simply a summons for cycling in the wrong lane, depending on the Ms. Tarlov's condition in the coming days. Witnesses Matter It is hard in such cases to determine accurately the speed of a cyclist. Also, fighting a personal injury lawsuit against speeding cyclists is pretty tough as the blame is almost always put on the pedestrian. Take Jason Marshal, who insists he wasn’t speeding and had the right of way because of the green light. In such cases, it is necessary to have reliable witnesses who can prove the cyclist's guilt, and a personal accident lawyer who is well versed in similar cases to fight your case. Another Cycling Death This is the second case in two months, much to the consternation of local residents who have lodged several complaints during meetings at Central Park Precinct Community Council. On August 3 rd, Irving Schachter, a 75-year-old Brooklyn Technical HS physics teacher died two days after he was hit by a cyclist trying to avoid a pedicab. Schachter succumbed to his injuries at New York-Presbyterian Hospital. One of the major concerns in bike accident cases is the lack of mandatory insurance coverage for bikes for such injury or deaths. Liability for bike accidents almost always comes down to negligence. Which is why it becomes even more important that you hire a reliable personal accident lawyer to help you win your lawsuit in time. The immediate concern for a crash victim is medical attention. And if the injuries are serious, you may be in recovery for a long time and may be out of work too. Your personal injury accident attorney can help you win medical coverage from no-fault which can go a long way in helping you heal and recover from the crash. 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 lawsuits, civil cases or administrative hearings, it is important for a part to prove its position or claim by preponderance. Preponderance is actually defined as superiority in force, weight, and importance. Preponderance of evidence in legal terms means that a party has shown that its version of causes, facts, fault, or damages are most likely not the correct version. This is especially the case where breach of contract or personal injury suits are concerned. It is easy to meet this standard and it applies to all civil cases, unless the law states otherwise. The preponderance of the evidence is basically one more way of saying that something is “more likely than not’ true An Example Say for instance, if an injured person sues a company or another person in a personal injury lawsuit, it is up to that injured person to prove that the company or person being sued is in fact legally responsible for any injuries caused. However, it is not necessary for the injured person to prove this beyond any chance of a doubt. All the plaintiff or injured person has to be able to do is prove that the defendant is “more likely than not” responsible for any injuries caused. Therefore, a preponderance of the evidence is basically one more way of saying that something is “more likely than not’ true. Winning a case based on preponderance The plaintiff or injured person must be able to prove that the events in their case have “more likely than not” taken place in the manner that they have claimed it did, as opposed to how the defendant claimed it to have happened, in order to win a case. Having said that, there is no set formula to establish if an injured person or plaintiff has met their burden of proof. It is only after all the evidence is heard by a jury or a judge if the case is a bench trial, that it is determined that the plaintiff has been successful in proving whether their version of the case is “more likely than not” the one that actually occurred. Proving Liability Preponderance is a tricky concept to include in a case or a claim. It is important that a plaintiff be able to prove that every element of their claim against the defendant “more likely than not” took place, for them to be able to prove that the defendant is liable to the plaintiff for damages. For instance, a plaintiff must be able to prove all four elements of negligence if they have sued a defendant for such a thing, like the defendant had a duty towards the plaintiff; that the defendant breached that specified duty; that the breach in question caused the injury of the plaintiff; and that monetary damages will compensate the plaintiff for the injury caused. The plaintiff will not be able to win the case in court if they aren’t able to prove that each of these “more likely than not” occurred. Preponderance is a tricky concept to include in a case or a claim and that is why it is imperative for every plaintiff to seek out the services of a qualified attorney who can assist them in making their case and acquiring the compensation they deserve.

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.

To win the case in a criminal trial, it is necessary that the evidence provided by the prosecution should prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant is guilty of the charges that were brought against him/her. During court proceedings, two types of evidence can be used – direct evidence and circumstantial evidence. Understanding Circumstantial Evidence Civil cases, when trying to deny or establish liability, are based on circumstantial evidence. Direct Evidence Direct evidence and circumstantial evidence are two very different things. Direct evidence shows something to be an unarguable fact, beyond all reasonable doubt. For instance, physical evidence of a crime, video and audio tapes and the testimony from a reliable witness can be termed as direct evidence in a case. Direct evidence allows the jury to infer, without a doubt, whether the defendant is guilty or not. Circumstantial evidence on the other hand, is used to establish innocence or guilt in a trial through reasoning. It is referred to as indirect evidence since it only suggests a certain fact strongly, but does not actually prove it. This indirect evidence results from the combination of several unrelated facts which the prosecution uses to try and convince a jury of a defendant’s guilt or innocence. The Criminal Mindset Criminals are very careful most of the time not to leave behind any direct evidence of the crimes they might have committed. This is why very often courts rely on circumstantial evidence to determine the facts of the case. Understanding the Difference Usually, it is criminal prosecutors who rely on circumstantial evidence to prove their case. Civil cases, when trying to deny or establish liability, are based on circumstantial evidence. Many people believe that circumstantial evidence carries less importance than direct evidence. This is partly true, but not to a complete extent. Direct evidence is definitely more powerful than circumstantial evidence, there are times that circumstantial evidence might offer an advantage over direct evidence since it is more complicated to fabricate or suppress. There are different types of circumstantial evidence such as a suspect’s behavior after a crime, differential treatment and threatening comments prior to a crime and sometimes, witnesses, and forensic evidence. Direct evidence and circumstantial evidence are two very different things Putting Two and Two Together Slanderous comments or direct verbal threats to a person’s life before the occurrence of say, that person’s murder, can be considered to be circumstantial evidence. If an individual treated an assault victim badly before the crime was committed, they might also be investigated by the police on the basis of circumstantial evidence. For instance, a person who stalked a woman in the past may be investigated if she was raped. In both cases, the evidence is considered to be circumstantial in nature. Blurring the Lines Another viable example of circumstantial evidence is a person who is being investigated for a robbery, spending copious amounts of money after the crime was reported to have been committed, or a person who may be overtly nervous while being investigated for a possible murder. There is not any hard evidence of either crime here, but circumstantial evidence is present. There are times that certain eye witness accounts may also be considered to be circumstantial evidence.

CPLR §3101(a) requires, in pertinent part, “full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action.” With regard to medical treatment received by a plaintiff in a lawsuit, this has been interpreted to mean that the injured plaintiff waives the physician-patient privilege with respect to his relevant prior medical history concerning those physical conditions which he affirmatively places in controversy. See Koump v. Smith, 25 NY2d 287, 303 NYS2d 858, 250 NE2d 857 (1969). However, a party does not waive the physician-patient privilege with respect to unrelated illnesses or injuries. In Romance v. Zavala, 98 AD3d 726, 950 NYS2d 390 (2nd Dept. 2012), the court stated that, the defendants were not entitled to any authorizations for the release of the injured plaintiff’s medical records requested in their notice to produce, which sought disclosure of medical records pertaining to illnesses and injuries unrelated to the subject accident. The court continued, while the principle of “full disclosure” does not give a party the right to uncontrolled and unfettered disclosure. About Alcohol and Mental Health Records Similarly, an injured plaintiff’s alcohol and mental health records may be protected. If there is no claim regarding mental and psychological injuries, Mental Health Law 33.12 offers protections from disclosure, and even a claim for “loss of enjoyment of life,” relating solely to claimed physical injuries, does not warrant disclosure of substance abuse and mental health treatment information, without a showing of potential relevance. In other words, a defendant must show that the interests of justice significantly outweigh the plaintiff’s right to confidentiality by expert or other evidence establishing a particularized need for inquiry into matters not directly at issue in this action. See Alford v. City of New York, 2014 WL 1356674 (1 Dept. 2014). About “Loss of Enjoyment of Life” Finally, there is a split between the First and Second Appellate Divisions about claims for “loss of enjoyment of life” that may be claimed in a Bill of Particulars. While the First Appellate Department will generally limit disclosure to those conditions affirmatively placed in controversy, the Second Appellate Department is much more liberal in its disclosure policies and will allow the defense to review records showing the nature and severity of the plaintiff’s prior medical conditions which may have an impact upon the amount of damages, if any, recoverable for a claim of loss of enjoyment of life. See Montalto v. Heckler, 113 AD3d 741, 978 NYS.2d 891 (2nd Dept. 2014) Contact our New York City Personal Injury Law Firm The New York City personal injury law firm of Rosenberg, Minc, Falkoff & Wolff has been representing injury victims for more than three decades. Our attorneys have a strong familiarity with the laws pertinent to personal injury cases in New York City and the surrounding areas. For more information about how these laws apply to your case, schedule a free consultation by contacting us online or 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.

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.

We are often asked about how to protect confidential medical information when pursuing a personal injury claim in New York. The short answer is … beware. By filing a personal injury lawsuit, you are exposing your entire confidential medical, and possibly psychological, history and records to the defense. In most cases, the court will require you to sign an authorization allowing the insurance company, or their defense attorneys to obtain your medical records. The New York City injury attorneys at Rosenberg, Minc, Falkoff, and Wolff fight to make sure our clients only give authorization for information that is related to your accident. Insurance companies want to examine the paperwork that documents your pre-existing injuries in order to determine if you have had past medical issues with the parts of your body that include your newly claimed injuries—regardless if the pre-existing injuries are even 10 years old. The Claims Information Bureau (CIB) defends subscribed firms and insurance companies by providing information about your past PI claims. The CIB will reveal all of the injuries previously claimed by you, as well as who represented you and the settlement amount. This information is accumulated and shared among all of the insurance companies and investigative firms defending injury claims. This makes it easy for an insurance company investigator to send a subpoena or contact the law firm that defended the old case to obtain your old claim file and all of the documents in it. Often times your old injuries will appear far worse on paper because your then-lawyer was gathering every bit of information to help you win your case. Denying that the prior claim exists when you have filed it and collected money is really not an option. Doing this will essentially end your current claim. Some clients believe if they go to a different lawyer for the new claim then they can hide the fact that they had a prior accident and claim. It doesn’t work. The minute you file a claim, your name social security number and other personal information is run through the CIB and your previous claim is easily discovered. Confidentiality of medical records is largely waved when you bring a lawsuit claiming injuries. If you claim that you are depressed or psychologically harmed as a result of your accident and injuries, then any previous psychiatric treatment or counseling would have to be revealed. The important point to understand is that previous injuries recorded in your medical records are likely to surface from your general medical history, medical insurance payment records, or your treating family doctor. The New York City injury attorneys at RMFW Law recommend that you speak candidly to your attorney so that they can advise you properly about revealing your past injuries. If the injuries were pre-existing there may still be a claim for an aggravation of an old injury, but if you are claiming an aggravation, it must be presented in the proper manner with the proper medical documentation. Speak with the New York City injury attorneys at RMFW Law today to get a confidential consultation regarding your case. Together we can make your case a strong one—with the correct legal advice!

People in New York City usually assume that they will be safe walking on the sidewalk. However, a recent crash in Brooklyn shows that isn’t always true. A 60-year-old woman was killed and three others were injured recently when an Acura SUV landed on the sidewalk after driving through a stop sign and colliding with an Jeep Cherokee, causing it to flip over. The victim’s husband, daughter and granddaughter were also injured in the accident. They were taken to the hospital. However, they were first reported to be in stable condition. Four people in the Jeep Cherokee, including the driver, were also injured in the crash. They were taken to a local hospital to be treated. It is unclear what caused the crash. Police have not filed criminal charges against the driver of the Acura SUV. Car accidents are more likely to occur when people are distracted, disobeying traffic laws or driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Sadly, one driver’s negligence can leave people with debilitating injuries. A car accident may even leave people with fatal injuries, as was the case in this most recent tragedy. Although people typically don’t intend to injure others in car accidents, negligent drivers must be held accountable. Victims and their family members may do that through a personal injury lawsuit. Compensation that is awarded through a successful lawsuit can be used to cover medical expenses as well as make up for lost wages. To determine whether or not a personal injury lawsuit is appropriate, victims in New York City would be wise to consult with an experienced attorney. Source: The Wall Street Journal, “Woman killed, family members hurt in NYC car crash,” Dec. 9, 2012 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.

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.

Five people are dead after a car crash late last month in Queens. The accident happened around 3:15 a.m. According to reports, a Mercedes Benz sports utility vehicle sped through two stoplights before crashing into a concrete pillar. The initial impact caused the vehicle to flip over and burst into flames. Three women died at the scene of the car accident along with two children. In addition to the driver of the vehicle, a 26-year-old man and a 7-year-old boy survived the horrific crash. One fire official called the accident “the worst single car accident he had seen in his 26-year career.” It is not clear why the driver was traveling at such a high rate of speed. However, a crash like this is an example of the kind of tragedies that can occur when drivers do to not obey traffic laws. Negligent driving continues to be a problem all across the country. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration recently announced that more than 7,600 people died in traffic accidents in the first quarter of the year alone, a 13.5 percent increase from the first quarter of 2011. Officials blame some of the accidents on this year’s unseasonably warm winter. Because the winter months were so mild, more people hit the road. Although the temperatures may have contributed to the increase in traffic fatalities during the first quarter, reckless driving was likely a factor in many of the accidents. When people are distracted, impaired or ignoring traffic laws, terrible tragedies can occur. A motor vehicle is not a toy. In order to prevent accidents, people must remain cautious and attentive whenever they are behind the wheel. Source: The Wall Street Journal, “NYC car crash kills 5, including 2 kids; 3 hurt,” Associated Press, July 22, 2012 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.

People in New York City and beyond expect that homeowners, business owners and city officials are doing what they can to keep people safe. However, accidents happen. Fortunately, when someone suffers an injury caused by falling merchandise or other overhead hazards he or she may be awarded compensation through a personal injury lawsuit. Earlier this year, a 29-year-old social worker was awarded $4 million after she suffered serious injuries from a fallen tree limb. The accident happened in 2007 in Stuyvesant Square Park in Manhattan. The woman was sitting under an 80-foot tree when a limb fell 30 feet and landed on top of her. The woman sued the city of New York, and her lawyers placed blame on parks workers who failed to notice that the tree was rotting. The city, however, claimed that they were not responsible for the accident since they are not required to perform “state-of-the-art inspections” on city trees. The 29-year-old woman is not the only person to be injured by falling tree limbs. In the last 10 years, nine other people have sued New York City for deaths or injuries caused by fallen tree branches. This story serves as a reminder that accident victims are often able to pursue legal action against negligent parties. Those who have been hurt because of another party’s carelessness would be wise to contact an experienced personal injury attorney. An attorney will work hard to get them the compensation they deserve. After all, people who are injured often must endure multiple surgeries, lengthy hospital stays and rehabilitation. They should not also have to suffer financial setbacks. Source: NBC New York, “ City Pays Millions to Settle Claims Over Rotting Trees,” May 14, 2012 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.