Articles Posted in Brooklyn

Published on:

On April 15, 1952 at around 6:30 in the evening, a volunteer fireman in Latham in the town of Colonie, in Albany County fell from the back step of a fire truck and was injured. While enroute to a fire the fireman was riding on the back step of the fire truck. The truck went through a four way intersection that had a saucer shaped drainage ditch in the center of it. The drainage ditch had been installed to correct water run off problem from the private land in the area. The area was very flat and water tended to sit on the surface without running off. The installation of the drainage ditch was designed to improve the problem. In fact, it only partially solved the problem of the water run-off and created a hazardous condition in the intersection of two highways.

When the fire truck crossed over the ditch, the fireman who was on the back stated that he remembered bouncing up about three feet into the air and then he came down into the street and rolled into the drainage ditch. A bystander collected him and took him to a local doctor where he received treatment for injuries to his arm. Later that night, he sought additional treatment from the workers compensation doctor for pain to his chest. The Bronx doctor who treated him stated that he did not remember the exact visit.

In fact, his records of the visit had been lost. He read from his report that he had treated the fireman for chest injuries from his fall from the truck. About six months after that visit to the Brooklyn workers compensation doctor, the fireman began to feel dizzy and sick. He reported to the local hospital where he was found to have a subdural hematoma. A subdural hematoma is a blood clot under the skull bone against the brain. It required brain surgery and he reports that he has been unable to work since the surgery.

Continue reading

Published on:

Defendant Hartford Fire Insurance Company (Hartford Co.) motions an order, in pursuit of CPLR 3212, which aims to dismiss the complaints of a truck driver and his wife, plaintiffs, on the specific ground that plaintiff is not actually insured under that of Hartford Co.’s insurance product and that he was not in fact an occupant of the insured truck at the time that the commercial truck accident happened. The Manhattan plaintiffs contradicted Hartford Co.’s expressed motion for summary judgment and made a cross motion for an order in pursuit of CPLR 3212, which purports to grant them summary judgment on the grounds of liability and goes down into the actual computation of damages and consequently in aid of NYCRR 60-2.3, which deems Hartford Co. to have given due consent in the aforesaid action amounting to a total of $25,000.

The aforesaid instant action is geared on uninsured motorist benefits wanted by the complainant in lieu with the said motor vehicle accident which took place on May 13, 2004 when the plaintiff, who stood outside of the delivery truck that he used for his job on making beer deliveries to various establishments, was suddenly hit by a box truck and was injured as he was pushed in between the box truck and his own delivery truck in the 18-wheeler crash. Following the aforesaid accident, Countrywide Insurance, the insurance carrier for the owner of the box truck, offered the full policy payment amounting to that of $25,000 to plaintiff. Subsequently, in accordance to filing a demand for settlement, the plaintiff then filed the aid instant lawsuit which seeks to recover underinsured motorist benefits that is under the SUM certification of the said policy which was issued by Hartford Co. to the employer of the complainant, Windmill Distributing Company, LP, which is doing business under the name of Phoenix Beverages, Inc. (Phoenix), that actually insured the said delivery truck which the plaintiff used in order to make deliveries. The Hartford Co. Policy actually provides underinsured motorist benefits which amounts to $1 million to the insured person as well as to any other occupant of a motor vehicle that is supposedly insured for SUM on the said policy.

In the statement given, the plaintiff further attested that he was actually newly employed by Phoenix on the day the accident happened. His job routine task at that time comprises of mainly driving the beer delivery truck as well as distributing the beer products to different establishments which includes beer distributors as well as bars. On that fateful day where he acquired personal injury in the accident, he went on the assigned delivery route which he was assigned to cover for a week.

Continue reading

Published on:

The Bronx complainant is pleading the Court to release an Order which grants summary judgment on his favor pertaining on the subject of liability. The defendant, however, is in contradiction with his particular appeal.

This specific action is based on the 18-wheeler crash in Long Island Expressway that happened last April 10, 2008. The said Complainant’s vehicle was described as a flat-bed truck, while the offender’s vehicle is said to be that of a tractor-trailer type. It is a good thing that the Complainant’s driver was not hurt in the said accident; however, the defendant who was then driving the tractor-trailer passed out in the event of the said commercial truck ACCIDENT. He was immediately brought to the hospital for medical assistance by the ambulance that arrived just in time.

The complaint was asking for $19,200 total of claims for the alleged rental fees incurred when he opted to rent a truck for a determined period of time while the truck which was damaged due to the accident was still being repaired. No Personal Injury claims were made by both parties as a result of the truck accident.

Continue reading

Published on:

On August 24, 1950 a truck was involved in an accident that resulted in a personal injury claim. An action was commenced in the Supreme Court of Kings County for review. The elements of this case are that following the accident, the Brooklyn insurance company for the truck contacted the insured person who had been driving the truck and told him that he was not going to be covered in the accident. The insurance policy had been purchased about four weeks prior to the accident and was supposed to be in effect for one year.

However, 21 months after the truck accident and an entire year after the notice of a lawsuit action had been served; the insurance company contacted the driver and informed him that at the time of the accident, his insurance had lapsed due to a suspension and that the insurance company would not be covering the accident. The date that the accident occurred was in the early part of the policy and clearly within bounds of being covered by that policy. The driver of the truck filed a lawsuit to make the company supply the insurance coverage that he had paid for.

The Supreme Court stated that after a review of the evidence in this case, there was no evidence that either the driver or anyone on behalf of the driver authorized suspension of the policy. Further, they could find no one in the insurance company who had authorized a suspension of the policy at any time and certainly not during the time span that covered the accident in question.

Continue reading

Published on:

On October 31, 1958 a mother was waiting to have her infant daughter x-rayed in a mobile X-ray truck, the truck was struck by another vehicle. The child was injured in the accident. The driver in the commercial truck accident later died. The accident report has to speak for what happened in the accident.

Apparently, the commercial truck driver attempted to move his vehicle which was parked against the curb in front of the place of business. There was an unoccupied vehicle parked behind his truck, and the mobile X-ray truck was parked in front. The driver put his vehicle into reverse and struck the car parked behind him. The bumpers interlocked due to the size difference in the vehicles. The commercial truck driver pulled forward causing the vehicle attached to its bumper to come into hard contact with the mobile X-ray truck that had been parked in front. The impact caused the injury to the infant.

The parents of the infant filed suit in Brooklyn, New York against the driver and the company that employed the driver for damages incurred because of the driver’s actions. They asked the court for an order granting summary judgment against the company and to direct immediate assessment of damages by a jury.

Continue reading

Published on:

On July 27, 2007, an employee for a water pollution control plant in Brooklyn, New York was at work in an area that was under construction to upgrade the facility. Part of the employee’s job was to provide identification checks on all persons working on the site to ensure that they were members of the Teamsters Union. The water pollution control plant provided him with a Chevrolet Silverado work truck to use while he was performing his duties. On this date while he was pulling up to park the truck, he observed another truck pull in and turn down a temporary road. The employee advised that he got out of his truck to walk down the road to check the man’s union card because it was a nice day. When he got out of his work truck, he stepped onto a temporary ramp that was set up by some of the construction workers on the site. The ramp was constructed of two by four pieces of wood. When he stepped on it, the boards separated and he fell approx. 18 inches to the ground breaking several bones in his foot. He filed a lawsuit to gain compensation for his injuries.

The employee stated in his suit that he felt that the water treatment plant was responsible for paying for his injury because they either knew or should have known that the ramp was in use on their property and that the ramp was not safe. The company disagreed. They felt that they did not install the ramp and that they did not know that it was in use. They did not feel that they should be held responsible for his injury because he was injured by his own fault because he was using the two by fours to walk on. The water treatment plant requested a summary judgment to dismiss all liability against them.

The court disagreed. They stated that the employees’ injuries came from an unsafe condition that was present at the construction site, i.e. the faulty ramp of two-by-fours which collapsed. The question of law is if the plant had actual or constructive notice of the condition of the ramp being used on the premises. The employee does not dispute that the water treatment plant did not build the ramp itself, only that they knew that it was there and did nothing to either make it safe or remove it.

Continue reading

Published on:

A wrongful death action was filed arising from a car accident which occurred in New York during a early morning in March. Involved in the truck accident was a tractor-trailer driver in the employ of a trucking company. According to sources, due to an electrical problem, the tractor-trailer stalled in traffic in the center lane of the Expressway. The driver got out of the tractor-trailer, walked to the front of the vehicle, and got down on the ground under the truck. While the driver was under the truck, a truck owned by a truck rental company pushed the tractor-trailer forward and onto the tractor-trailer driver’s chest, thereby causing his death.

As a result of the truck accident, the truck rental company filed a property damage claim with its insurance carrier. The insurance company paid the claim and instituted arbitration proceedings against the insurance company for the tractor-trailer trucking company seeking reimbursement for the property damage claim. The tractor-trailer driver’s widow instuted a civil action for wrongful death against driver of the truck and the truck’s owner. The Bronx driver and the Brooklyn truck owner, in turn, filed a third-party action against the owner of the tractor-trailer seeking contribution and indemnification.

The truck company who owns the tractor-trailer sought to dismiss the complaint based on the doctrine of collateral estoppel. The truck company said the doctrine bars the truck driver and the truck owner from seeking indemnification and contribution because its responsibility for the accident was previously litigated in the property damage arbitration proceeding instituted by the rental truck company’s insurance carrier. The tractor-trailer truck company said the truck driver and the truck owner are bound by the finding of the arbitrator that the tractor-trailer was not negligent, and, therefore, not liable for the accident.

Continue reading

Published on:

This is a summary of the decision of the Supreme Court of the State of New York in Nassau County on a motion for summary judgment submitted by BNJ Granite/Cabinets last March 7, 2011. BNJ Granite/Cabinets and Innovative Stone were charged with negligence and failing to provide its employees with a safe work site and working conditions. This negligence was alleged to be the cause of the truck accident in which Michael Tyson was injured.

On January 12, 2009, Michael Tyson of the Bronx was injured as he was working in BNJ Granite’s granite manufacturing business site in Holbrook, New York. Tyson was hired by Innovative Stone to transport two slabs of granite, around 6 feet by 10 feet and weighing 900 pounds, in his truck. The slabs were to be placed on the flatbed of his truck with an A-frame support to hold the slabs in place. The A-frame was assembled by two BNJ Granite employees. The slabs would be then be lifted by a forklift onto the truck and into the frame.

One of the BNJ employees, under Tyson’s guidance, lifted the first granite slab and positioned it on the surface of the truck. He did the same with the second slab when suddenly, it fell from the A-frame into where Tyson was. Tyson had been laying wooden planks on the truck’s base to cushion the granite and prevent it from breaking. The slab landed on both his legs and crushed them. He had to have three surgeries and both legs amputated.

Continue reading

Published on:

One afternoon, a 35-year old Brooklyn woman met a car accident. Her vehicle was struck in the rear by a truck. The truckwas not immediately identified because it hurriedly left the scene of the accident. According to sources, the woman suffered personal injuries as a result of that accident. To recover damages for the car and her injuries, the woman filed an action against the insurance company who provided insurance to her vehicle. Under the insurance policy, the insurance company agreed to pay for some injuries caused by an truck accident arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of a Supplementary Uninsured Automobile.

According to the police report, the Bronx truck that hit the woman’s car had a New York license plate. A DMV printout indicated the truck that hit the woman’s car was insured. The insurer of the truck, however, denied any liability and contended that the driver of the truck was not involved in the accident.

Arbitration on the case began. The insurer of the woman’s vehicle, however, sought to have arbitration permanently stayed alleging that the opposing side has failed to furnish sufficient evidence to support their allegation that the offending vehicle was uninsured at the date of the accident. The insurance company also alleged that it is not liable for the injuries suffered by the woman and the damages sustained by the car because the accident did not arise out of the ownership, maintenance or use of the car. The insurance company maintained that it does not have an obligation to pay under the insurance because the truck caused the accident and its resulting injuries and damages.

Continue reading

Published on:

Local police accused a dump truck driver of careless driving. The allegations were placed against the Highland Lakes man when he ran a red light and subsequently hit a black jeep, being driven by a 53-year-old man.

The responding police sergeant and patrolman found that both drivers, thankfully, escaped injury.

Traffic was backed up in both directions while the lane was shut down to clean up fuel in the roadway.

Continue reading

Contact Information