New York Personal Injury Lawyer Blog

In a victory for safety and for undocumented workers in construction accidents, a recent appellate court decision from the First Department, which reviews cases from the Bronx and New York Counties, upheld a trial court’s decision not to consider a plaintiff’s immigration status because it would be unfairly prejudicial and not relevant in determining his damages.

In 2003, Jorge Angamarca, a carpentry worker, fell two stories through an improperly covered opening in a roof. Under New York Labor Law Section 240, unless a worker is provided with safety equipment, including proper scaffolding, ladders, safety harnesses, and other devices which would protect him from falls from heights, there is “absolute liability” (meaning absolute responsibility against those parties with very few exceptions) against the owners, general contractors, and construction managers of the property where the accident occurred. Mr. Angamarca, an illegal immigrant from Ecuador, suffered severe brain and spinal cord injuries in the accident. Most of the defendants in the case settled prior to trial, but the builder and property owner, Jefferson Townhouses, decided to go to trial, a very risky proposition in a Labor Law 240 case. In 2009, a jury awarded Mr. Angamarca a total of $20 million, including: $100,000 for past pain and suffering; $1 million for future pain and suffering; $1.5 million for past medical expenses; $16.7 million for future medical expenses; $74,000 for past lost earnings; and $573,000 for future lost earnings.

The Appellate Court in Angamarca followed the directive of the highest court in New York, which has ruled that immigrants working in the United States illegally can still recover lost wages after an injury. The Court held that regardless of a worker’s immigration status, he or she can recover damages when the worker's injuries are so severe that the worker is physically incapable of working.

Continue reading "Appellate Court Determines That Immigration Status Not Relevant When Determining Damages" »

On July 26, 2009, Diane Schuler, a 36 year old wife, mother of two and aunt of three, drove southbound in the northbound lanes of the Taconic Parkway for 1.7 miles in an intoxicated condition (with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.19%, more than double the legal limit) with her 2 year old daughter, five year old son, and three nieces between the ages of 5 and 8 in the vehicle. There was a head-on collision with a car proceeding northbound driven by Guy Bastardi, with his father Michael Bastardi Sr. and family friend Daniel Longo passengers in the vehicle. With the exception of Schuler's son Bryan, who suffered serious injuries but survived the horrific accident, everyone else in both vehicles died in the fatal crash.

Two years after the crash, a spate of lawsuits have been filed by the families of the occupants of both cars, as well as by Dean and Angela Tallarico, who suffered minor injuries in a third vehicle in the accident.

In 2009, Roseanne Guzzo, the sister of Guy and daughter of Michael Bastardi, Sr., filed a wrongful death suit against the Schuler estate and Warren Hance (Diane's brother and the owner of the SUV she was driving), claiming that Schuler negligently operated the vehicle in an intoxicated condition and caused the deaths of her brother and father.

This month, with the two year wrongful death statute of limitation about to expire, five other lawsuits were filed, including:

A lawsuit by Daniel Schuler, the husband of Diane Schuler, against the State of New York, alleging that the accident was caused by negligent roadway design, maintenance, and improper signage, resulting in the death of his 2 year old daughter Erin and injuries to his surviving son Bryan;

A second lawsuit by Daniel Schuler against his brother in law Warren Hance, claiming that Hance was responsible for the accident as the owner of the minivan driven by Hance's sister Diane Schuler;

A suit by Jackie Hance, the mother of Katie, 5, Alyson, 7 and Emma 8, alleging that due to Diane Schuler's negligent and intoxicated operation of the minivan, her daughters suffered "pre-impact fear and terror, fear of impending death, extreme horror and mental anguish." This lawsuit was commenced in the Suffolk County Supreme Court.

Last, Daniel Longo's brother Joseph sued both the Schuler Estate and Warren Hance for the wrongful death of his brother. To be very blunt, both lawsuits by Daniel Schuler have a substantial likelihood of being dismissed, due to the incontrovertible fact that Diane Schuler's operation of the minivan in the wrong direction in an intoxicated condition with a blood alcohol concentration more than double the legal limit was the proximate cause (substantial factor) in causing the accident, and not improper signage, negligent design of the Taconic, or Mr. Hance's ownership of the vehicle.

It is also highly unlikely that any jury in Westchester County or Suffolk County would determine that there was anything Guy Bastardi could have done to avoid the car accident, with a vehicle coming at him between 65 and 70 miles per hour in his lane with an intoxicated driver behind the wheel. Clearly, the only reason that Mr. Bastardi was sued in the various cases was an effort by the attorneys to secure a settlement from the insurance carrier for Bastardi. In my opinion, there is no chance that that will happen. As for Warren Hance, he was sued in several of the cases simply due to his status as the owner of the minivan that his sister Diane was driving. However, it does not appear that there is any evidence that he knew that his sister was driving his minivan in an intoxicated condition, except for a brief phone call shortly before the fatal crash when Diane called him by the Tappan Zee Bridge within minutes of the accident. At that time,it apparently was too late to stop her, although it is believed he tried. Further, in my opinion, no jury in the world would find a man who lost his three daughters in the crash responsible for the accident, when he did not know his sister was going to drive drunk and high on marijuana.

As fro the other lawsuits by Jackie Hance, Roseann Guzzo, and to a lesser extent, the Tallaricos, they are all very solid cases on liability (fault). The only question will be the amount of insurance coverage available on the Hance vehicle (and any potential additional coverage under Diane Schuler's policy), which will certainly fall well short of compensating the victims of this awful accident.

Continue reading "Fatal Crash On Taconic Results in 6 Lawsuits" »

In October 2010, the judges for the Southern District of New York (Covering counties including Westchester, Manhattan, and the Bronx among others) voted to change its rules to allow specific categories of cases to be designated for automatic mediation. Effective August 1, 2011, excluding class actions, civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 filed in federal court in the Southern District of New York will be automatically designated for mediation. Civil rights violations under § 1983 include police misconduct, false arrest, excessive force, and malicious prosecution claims. Often, these federal claims are paired with state law causes of action of false imprisonment, assault and battery, and malicious prosecution. This has major implications for the New York City Police Department, who is named as a defendant in hundreds of lawsuits in the Southern District each year.

Most of these §1983 civil rights cases settle. This program is designed to start the settlement process as soon as possible. Setting early will reduce the total cost of litigation, saving parties thousands of dollars, and reduce volume of cases on the federal Court’s docket. Mediation is efficient, and fair to all involved. Since mediation is non-binding, the parties may still proceed forward in the normal course of litigation if early settlement talks fail.

Under the new program, both parties are required to disclose key information quickly, at the beginning of the lawsuit. All plaintiffs must now include HIPAA releases for medical records and arrest records with the summons and complaint. Within 28 days of the the defendant’s answer, the police department must exchange records from Internal Affairs, any Civilian Complaint Review Board, similar complaints involving the same defendant police officer, and key information from the defendant officer’s file. Within 45 days of the answer, the plaintiff must make a settlement demand, and within 14 days, the defendant police department must respond. Within 90 days of the answer, both parties must go to meditation. If a settlement is reached, the defendant still has 90 days to issue payment to the plaintiff.

Continue reading "Police Misconduct Cases Now Sent To Mediation in Federal Court" »