New York Personal Injury Attorneys Blog

In their most recent article, Ben Rubinowitz and his good friend and colleague Evan Torgan, discuss various ways trial lawyers can maximize damage awards in personal injury, medical malpractice and wrongful death cases. The title of the article is "Dealing With Damages in Voir Dire and Summation." Both Rubinowitz and Torgan are recognized as experts in their field. Each has obtained multiple million dollar awards. Not only have Rubinowitz and Torgan published more than 50 articles in the New York Law Journal over the last 10 years, but for the last 25 years both have lectured for free to trial lawyers throughout the Country at more than 100 Continuing Legal Education courses. "Our main focus is on helping our client's recover for the severe injuries they sustained through the negligence of others. Evan and I have dedicated our Professional Lives to working to ensure that appropriate compensation is given. Too often, Insurance Companies refuse to make fair and reasonable offers and try to short change those who have been injured in all types of cases including auto accidents, construction accidents, medical malpractice cases and products liability claims. We fight for our clients -- and teach other Trial Lawyers that they are obligated to work hard and even fight to secure justice for those they represent."

Both Rubinowitz and Torgan are partners at their respective firms and each only represents the injured victims of negligent conduct.

In Fox v H&M Hennes & Mauritz, L.P;et.al., 2011 NY Slip Op 03205, decided April 19, 2011, The Appellate Division, Second Department rejected defendant's claim that plaintiff was enagaed in routine maintenance and thus Section 240(1) was not applicable.

The facts as set forth by The Court were as follows;

"The plaintiff was employed by the fourth-party defendant Garrity Electric, Inc. (hereinafter Garrity), as a mechanic performing general electrical contracting work. Pursuant to an agreement between the defendant third-party plaintiff, H & M Hennes & Mauritz, L.P. (hereinafter H & M), and the third-party defendant/fourth party plaintiff Maintenance, Etc., LLC (hereinafter Maintenance), which provides retail companies with vendors for construction services, Garrity was hired to replace bulbs and ballasts/transformers in 78 overhead light fixtures, located approximately 12 feet above the floor, in a retail store leased by H & M. Garrity had done business with H & M since 2000, performing electrical work for which it was paid the sum of $30,000 to $50,000 per year. Garrity furnished a team of "seven or eight" workers, including the plaintiff, which was led by a team foreman, to perform the subject work in the H & M store. The plaintiff allegedly was injured when he fell from a ladder while engaged in this work. The Supreme Court, inter alia, granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability on the Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action."

In holding that the plaintiff was engaged in repair work at the time of his injury and thus covered by The Statute it stated:

"Contrary to H & M's contention, the provisions of the statute apply to the facts of this case. When viewed in isolation, the plaintiff's task of replacing a transformer might be considered routine maintenance (see Deoki v Abner Props. Co., 48 AD3d 510; Sanacore v Solla, 284 AD2d 321). However, the issue of whether any particular task "falls within section 240(1) must be determined on a case-by-case basis, depending on the context of the work" (Prats v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 100 NY2d 878, 883 [emphasis added]). Here, in view of the agreement between Garrity and H & M, the plaintiff's position as a mechanic at Garrity assigned to perform general electrical work, and the overall scope of the entire job which Garrity was engaged to perform at the store, the task which the plaintiff was performing at the time of the accident was a repair, as opposed to routine maintenance (see Prats v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 100 NY2d at 883; Fitzpatrick v State of New York, 25 AD3d 755; see also Nowakowski v Douglas Elliman Realty, LLC, 78 AD3d 1033; cf. Deoki v Abner Props. Co., 48 AD3d 510)."

The New York Construction Accident Lawyers at Gair, Gair, Conason, Steigman, Mackauf, Bloom and Rubinowitz have years of experience representing construction workers who have suffered injury in construction accidents in New York.

Our partner Ben Rubinowitz successfully resolved a claim against the New York City Transit Authority for $4 million. At the time of the accident, a young woman was crossing a New York City street when she was struck by a bus driven by a N.Y.C.T.A. employee. The defense claimed the accident was her fault asserting that she had not crossed in the crosswalk and that she failed to pay attention to the traffic conditions. The injured victim asserted that the bus driver failed to keep a reasonable and proper lookout failing to pay proper attention and in failing to avoid the pedestrian. As a result of the impact the woman suffered a degloving injury to her knee and pelvic fractures.

Rubinowitz, who recently won a $27.5 million verdict for another client struck by a bus said: “This successful result was part of a team effort. Howard Hershenhorn, Diana Carnemolla and Peter Saghir also worked timelessly for our client.” Rubinowitz continued: “We have the ability to secure the very best results for our clients because of two main reasons: We work harder and put in more effort than any other law firm.”

Gair, Gair, Conason, Steigman, Mackauf, Bloom & Rubinowitz has had remarkable results for its clients in car accident, construction, premises liability, civil rights and medical malpractice cases. Ten of its lawyers have been listed in Best Lawyers and Super Lawyers.

By Anthony H. Gair,
In Arnaud v. 140 Edgecomb LLC, et al., decided on April 14, 2011, The New York Appellate Division, First Department, reversed the denial of summary judgment in a construction accident case on a construction worker's New York Labor Law 240(1) cause of action.

Plaintiff was working at a building undergoing renovation. Plaintiff and a co-worker were moving wood planks from the fourth floor to the second floor, by use of a pulley and ropes. While plaintiff was on the second floor, with his arms outstretched through a window to grab the wood as it was lowered, he was suddenly struck by a plank, which caused injury to his wrist and fingers. While we believe the decision was correct it seems the Courts are continuing to have trouble interpreting Runner v New York Stock Exch., Inc. The Court stated as follows;

"The extraordinary protections of Labor Law § 240(1) extend only to a narrow class of special hazards, and the decisive question as to whether the statute applies to a particular accident is whether plaintiff's injuries were the direct consequence of a failure to provide adequate protection against harm directly flowing from the application of the force of gravity to an object or person (see Runner v New York Stock Exch., Inc., 13 NY3d 599, 604 [2009], citing Ross v Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co., 81 NY2d 494, 501 [1993])."

In fact in Runner, The Court stated, "Rather, the single decisive question is whether plaintiff's injuries were the direct consequence of a failure to provide adequate protection against a risk arising from a physically significant elevation differential." In the context of the facts of Runner The Court Stated "Manifestly, the applicability of the statute in a falling object case such as the one before us does not under this essential formulation depend upon whether the object has hit the worker. The relevant inquiry—one which may be answered in the affirmative even in situations where the object does not fall on the worker—is rather whether the harm flows directly from the application of the force of gravity to the object." In Arnaud The Court went on to hold;

"Nor does the fact that plaintiff did not point to any particular defect in the pulley defeat his entitlement to summary judgment (see Harris v 170 E. End Ave., LLC, 71 AD3d 408 [2010], lv dismissed 15 NY3d 911 [2010]; Orellano v 29 E. 37th St. Realty Corp., 292 AD2d 289 [2002]). Labor Law § 240(1) provides for liability where safety equipment such as hoists are not "placed and operated as to give proper protection." Thus, it is not necessary that plaintiff establish that the pulley was defective, only that he was not given "proper protection" (see Williams v 520 Madison Partnership, 38 AD3d 464 [2007]). "

In regard to Runner and Hoists see our prior post, New York Construction Accident Law: Gasques v. State of New York,What Does It Stand For?

In regard to falling objects see our prior post, New York Construction Accidents-The Demise of "Secured" in Falling Object Cases?

The New York Construction Accident Lawyers at Gair, Gair, Conason, Steigman, Mackauf, Bloom and Rubinowitz have years of experience representing construction workers who have suffered injury in construction accidents in New York.

On April 4, 2011, a jury, after a two-week trial in Philadelphia Common Pleas Court awarded $10 Million to a 60-year-old man in a medical malpractice case in which it was claimed that the plaintiff was mis-diagnosed as suffering from ALS a fatal neuromuscular disease.

The Plaintiff’s attorney, Matthew Casey, claimed the mis-diagnosis resulted in the plaintiff having to spend the rest of his life in a wheelchair.

At trial, it was argued that the defendant did not perform tests and consult with radiologists before diagnosing the plaintiff with ALS.

Following the mis-diagnosis, the defendant told the plaintiff he had 18 months to three years to live. The plaintiff didn't receive the correct diagnosis - that he suffered from a spinal cord compression - until more than three years later, after he had already made plans for his own funeral.

It was argued that if the plaintiff was diagnosed properly by the defendant, his condition would have been treatable with surgery which was no longer an option and that the plaintiff now suffers from permanent leg paralysis.

Brooklyn Law School President Joan G. Wexler has appointed our partner Howard Hershenhorn to the law school's President's Advisory Council. This select group of attorneys will help guide the Law School forward by offering the school President and Dean practical advice on the most important issues the school will face in the future.

Peer Review Ratings attest to a lawyer's legal ability and professional ethics in specific areas of practice, and reflects the confidential opinions of members of the Bar and Judiciary. Mr. Sallay’s legal ability in the field of Personal Injury Law, as rated by his peers, received a “Preeminent” rating which is the highest rating an attorney can receive. In addition, Mr. Sallay was determined to have the highest professional ethics as evidenced by his adherence to professional standards of conduct and ethics, reliability, diligence and other criteria relevant to the discharge of professional responsibilities.

The New York law firm of Gair, Gair Conason Steigman, Mackauf, Bloom & Rubinowitz is proud to have 10 attorneys who have been awarded with a “Preeminent” AV rating by their peers.