Serving Clients Throughout Upstate New York with Multiple Convenient Locations Syracuse | Oneida | Watertown | New Hartford | Binghamton | Cortland | Rochester | Oswego | Albany | Buffalo

While some collisions arise out of circumstances beyond anyone’s control, most are brought about by negligent driving. Even if it seems obvious that a person’s reckless driving caused an accident, however, issues of liability are rarely resolved by the courts before trial. For example, in a recent opinion issued in a case arising out of a rear-end collision, the court found that there were factual disputes in the matter that precluded summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff. If you were injured in a car accident, you have the right to pursue claims against the responsible party, and it is smart to meet with a Rochester personal injury lawyer about what claims you may be able to pursue.

Facts of the Case

It is alleged that in March 2015, the plaintiff suffered injuries in a rear-end collision involving the defendant. Specifically, the plaintiff asserted that he was stopped at a red light at an intersection when his vehicle was struck in the rear by a truck driven by the defendant driver and owned by the defendant company. As such, he filed a lawsuit against the defendants, arguing that their negligence caused him harm. After discovery ended, the plaintiff moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability. The court denied his motion, and he appealed.

Summary Judgment on the Issue of Liability in Car Accident Cases

On appeal, the trial court ruling was affirmed but on different grounds than those relied upon by the lower court. The court explained that pursuant to New York law, a rear-end collision involving a stopped vehicle establishes negligence, prima facie, on the part of the driver of the second vehicle. As such, the second driver must rebut the inference of negligence by offering a nonnegligent reason for the crash. Continue Reading ›

The majority of medical malpractice cases are pursued at the state court level. Some defendants, though, prefer to litigate claims before federal courts and will move a case filed in state court to a federal district court. Federal courts have limited jurisdiction, though, and if the removal of a medical malpractice case is improper, it will be remanded back to the state level. Recently, a New York court discussed when it is appropriate to remand a medical malpractice case back to state court in a matter in which it granted the plaintiff’s motion. If you were harmed by inadequate medical care, it is in your best interest to have a discussion with a Rochester medical malpractice lawyer concerning your options for seeking justice.

Procedural History of the Case

It is reported that the decedent lived in the defendant’s nursing home as a resident. In May 2021, she passed away after contracting COVID-19. The plaintiff then filed a case against the defendant asserting medical and nursing malpractice, wrongful death, and numerous other claims. The basis for the plaintiff’s claims was the defendant’s alleged failure to take necessary precautions during the pandemic, which ultimately led to her mother’s death.

Allegedly, the defendant removed the case to federal court, arguing that such removal was appropriate because the defendant acted at the direction of multiple federal agencies when responding to the pandemic and because federal question jurisdiction existed under the PREP (Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness) Act. The defendant subsequently filed a motion to dismiss. The plaintiff filed a motion to remand the matter to state court. Continue Reading ›

New York law requires that motorists operate their vehicles in a safe manner and comply with traffic laws. Regardless, car accidents are common, and they usually occur because a person drove recklessly, in violation of the law. People hurt in collisions can pursue claims against the party responsible for their harm, but they must prove fault to recover damages. A defendant will rarely concede liability in a car accident case; on the contrary, many argue that they are not at fault and will ask the court to dismiss the case. In a recent New York ruling, a court explained what a defendant must establish to obtain judgment in their favor as a matter of law in a case arising out of a collision. If you sustained injuries in a car accident, you might be owed damages, and you should contact a Rochester personal injury attorney to discuss your case.

Procedural History of the Case

It is alleged that the plaintiff suffered injuries in a car accident involving the defendant. The accident occurred when the plaintiff, who was making a U-turn from a bus lane, was struck by a vehicle owned by the defendant company and operated by the defendant driver. The defendants moved for dismissal via summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The court denied their motion, and they appealed.

Summary Judgment in Car Accident Cases

On appeal, the trial court ruling was affirmed. The court explained that a defendant moving for dismissal via summary judgment in a personal injury case must show, prima facie, that they were not the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s harm. As there can be multiple proximate causes of an accident, a defendant asking for summary judgment in their favor must show that they are free from fault as a matter of law. Continue Reading ›

People harmed by incompetent medical professionals have a limited amount of time to pursue their claims. If they fail to file a medical malpractice lawsuit within the statute of limitations, they will typically lose the right to recover damages, as illustrated in a recent New York ruling in which the court dismissed the plaintiff’s case, rejecting her assertion that it sounded in negligence rather than medical malpractice. If you were injured by a reckless physician, you should confer with a Rochester medical malpractice attorney as soon as possible to avoid waiving your potential claims.

Factual and Procedural History

It is alleged that the defendant was a resident in the hospital where the plaintiff was delivered and attended to the plaintiff’s mother during her March 1999 birth. The defendant allegedly dropped the plaintiff on the floor of the delivery room immediately after she was born. In January 2020, the plaintiff filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against the defendant.

Reportedly, the defendant moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that it was barred by the statute of limitations. The plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing that the statute of limitations for negligence, rather than medical malpractice, applied. The court denied the defendant’s motion, and the defendant appealed. Continue Reading ›

Most New York medical malpractice cases are filed in state court. In some instances, though, a defendant will move a case to federal court. Federal courts can only hear certain cases, however, and if a court founds that it lacks jurisdiction over a matter, it will remand the case back to the state level. This was illustrated recently in a New York ruling issued in a medical malpractice case in which the court remanded the matter due to its lack of subject matter jurisdiction. If you were hurt by the carelessness of a healthcare provider, it is in your best interest to talk to a Rochester medical malpractice attorney about your options for pursuing damages.

Procedural History of the Case

It is alleged that the decedent was a resident of the defendant’s nursing home for two months in 2020. Toward the end of her residency, her condition declined, and she was diagnosed with COVID-19; she died later that same day. The plaintiff, the administrator of the defendant’s estate, subsequently filed a medical malpractice case against the defendant in state court, alleging, among other things, that the decedent died due to the defendant’s failure to take safety precautions during the pandemic. The defendant moved the case to federal court under the assertion that the complaint arose under federal law pursuant to the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act. The plaintiff then moved to remand the case back to state court.

Federal Jurisdiction in Medical Malpractice Cases

Upon review, the court granted the plaintiff’s motion. The court clarified that a defendant bears the burden of proving that removal is proper; as the defendant failed to meet its burden in this case, the court was required to remand the matter back to state court. Continue Reading ›

Medical malpractice cases are typically document-intensive, as both plaintiffs and defendants rely on medical records to support their positions, and discovery is a critical component of such cases. As such, if a party fails to comply with discovery requests, it may greatly impair their opponent’s ability to prove their claim or defense. The courts take a party’s refusal to answer discovery requests seriously and, as shown in a recent New York opinion issued in a medical malpractice case, may find it constitutes grounds for dismissing a case in its entirety. If you suffered injuries due to a negligently performed procedure, you might be owed compensation, and you should speak to a Rochester medical malpractice attorney to determine your rights.

History of the Case

It is alleged that the plaintiff, who was from South Korea, presented to the defendant’s office for gynecologic care in November 2017. At that time, the defendant confirmed that the plaintiff was five weeks pregnant. Later that week, the defendant performed an abortion on the plaintiff, which the plaintiff alleged deviated from the accepted and good practice of medicine.

Reportedly, the plaintiff returned home to South Korea the following month, where a doctor advised her that she was nine weeks pregnant with an unhealthy fetus that was likely to suffer birth defects. She underwent a second abortion procedure that was successful. She subsequently filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against the defendant, arguing that the negligently performed abortion caused her to sustain permanent losses and rendered her unable to work for several months. Continue Reading ›

Many people struggle with mental health issues that lead to self-harm. Fortunately, psychiatrists can often offer treatment that prevents people from fatally injuring themselves. If a patient that sought mental health care subsequently takes their own life, their treating provider may be held accountable. In a recent New York opinion, a court discussed what a plaintiff must prove to establish liability for the actions of a psychiatric patient in a matter in which the plaintiff was ultimately denied recovery. If you suffered losses due to a negligent psychiatrist, it is smart to speak to a Rochester medical malpractice attorney about your rights.

The Factual Background

It is reported that the decedent visited the defendant’s hospital in November 2015 with scratches on his arms. The decedent advised the treating physicians that he tried to end his life via suicide. He was observed for 20 hours and then released. He died by suicide the following morning. The decedent’s estate then filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against the defendant. Following the completion of discovery, the defendant moved to dismiss the case via summary judgment. The court granted the motion, and the plaintiff appealed.

Establishing a Psychiatrist’s Liability for the Actions of a Patient

On appeal, the court affirmed the trial court ruling. In doing so, it explained that in order to hold a doctor or their employer accountable for harm resulting from the behavior of a psychiatric patient who was released, when their release is a matter of professional judgment, the plaintiff must prove that the doctor’s decision to release the patient was something less than a professional medical decision that was founded upon a thorough examination of the patient. Continue Reading ›

Police and other first responders have the authority to activate emergency lights and sirens and travel in excess of the speed limit in certain circumstances. They must nonetheless do so with care, however, to avoid causing inadvertent harm. If a police officer operates their vehicle recklessly and collides with another motorist, they may be liable for negligence. Recently, a New York court discussed the standard of liability for police officers involved in collisions in a case in which it ultimately determined that the factual issues must be resolved by a jury. If you were hurt in a collision involving a first responder, it is prudent to meet with a Rochester personal injury attorney to discuss your possible claims.

Facts of the Case

It is alleged that the plaintiff was driving her vehicle when she was struck by a patrol car driven by the defendant sheriff, who was working on behalf of the defendant city. The defendant sheriff was in the process of responding to a dispatch regarding an armed robbery in progress at the time of the crash.

Reportedly, the defendant sheriff attempted to pass the plaintiff on the left when the plaintiff was making a left turn and hit the plaintiff’s car. The plaintiff, who suffered injuries in the accident, filed negligence claims against the defendants. The defendants moved for summary judgment, but their motion was denied. They appealed. Continue Reading ›

Under New York law, employers can be held accountable for the negligent behavior of their employees in certain situations. For example, a hospital may be liable for injuries that arise out of incompetent care rendered by a physician it employs. Vicarious liability will only be imposed on hospitals in certain situations, however, as demonstrated by a recent New York ruling issued in a medical malpractice case. If you were injured by a reckless physician in a hospital, you might be able to recover compensation, and you should consult a Rochester medical malpractice attorney as soon as possible.

Facts of the Case

It is reported that the plaintiff underwent surgery at the defendant hospital. Following his procedure, he developed gangrene in his left foot. His foot ultimately had to be amputated. He subsequently instituted medical malpractice claims against the doctor that provided his post-operative care and against the hospital on a theory of vicarious liability. The defendant hospital asked the court to dismiss the claims against them via a motion summary judgment. The court denied the defendant’s motion, after which the defendant filed an appeal.

Vicarious Liability in the Hospital Setting

The trial court ruling was affirmed on appeal. The court explained that generally, pursuant to the doctrine of respondeat superior, a hospital may be held vicariously liable for the malpractice or negligence of its employees while acting within the scope of employment. Hospitals will not be held vicariously liable, however, for negligent care offered by an independent physician, for example, when the doctor is retained by the patient themselves. Continue Reading ›

Generally, in a lawsuit arising out of a car accident, the party named as a defendant will be the driver of a vehicle involved in the collision. In some cases, though, other parties may be deemed liable for harm arising out of a car accident. Specifically, as shown in a recent New York ruling issued in a car crash case, if a person drives with reckless disregard for the safety of others, they could be found liable for any harm that ensues, even if they were not involved in the crash. If you were injured in a collision, it is wise to consult a Rochester, personal injury attorney about your potential claims.

The Facts of the Case

It is reported that in November 2011, the plaintiffs, who were police officers, were driving in a police vehicle. They then witnessed a high-speed chase involving another police department and the defendant driver. The defendant driver and the other police vehicle were driving at approximately 100 mph through a high-traffic area when the defendant driver lost control of his vehicle and collided with the plaintiffs’ vehicle.

Allegedly, the plaintiffs both suffered injuries, after which they filed a lawsuit against the defendants. The defendant police officers filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that they could not be deemed liable for the collision as they were not involved in the collision. The trial court granted the motion, and the plaintiffs appealed. Continue Reading ›

Super Lawyers
Justia Lawyer Rating
Rue Ratings - Best Attorneys of America
Multi-Million Dollar Advocates Forum
National Association of Distinguished Counsel
Avvo Rating
Martindalle Hubbel
Best Law Firms
Contact Information