NY Supreme NY

A recent decision, Maillard v. New York City Transit Authority, illustrates how liability is assessed (in the First Department, which encompasses Manhattan and the Bronx) in a rear-end collision. This car accident case involved four cars, which impacted one another.  The lead driver, Donalds, was struck from behind by Husband, who was struck from behind by…

Read More Sudden Stop of Lead Vehicle Did Not Rebut Presumption of Negligence of Following Vehicle in Rear-End Collision

Here is the age and gender discrimination lawsuit, captioned Reingold v. Cushman & Wakefield, Inc. (NY Sup Ct. index # 653626/2013) filed by Managing Director Suzy Reingold, 66, against real estate titan Cushman & Wakefield. The suit alleges, in sum, that notwithstanding plaintiff’s “stellar performance and extensive experience,” defendant discriminated against her on the basis of her…

Read More Suzy Reingold’s $20 Million Age and Gender Discrimination Lawsuit Against Cushman & Wakefield

In Garrett v. City of New York, the New York Supreme Court (NY County) recently granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s disability discrimination claims under the New York State and City Human Rights Laws. This case illustrates the extent to which illness-related absences from work may constitute a “reasonable accommodation”. Plaintiff alleged that…

Read More Absences and Failure to File Notice of Claim Doom Disability Discrimination Suit Against City of New York

In a recent rear-end collision case, Neat v. Pfeffer, Supreme Court, New York County (Judge Bluth) allowed defendant’s expert Dr. Fijan, a biomechanical engineer, to testify “as to the forces involved in the accident” but not “as to whether those forces could have caused plaintiff’s injuries.” The court reached this determination following a so-called Frye hearing to…

Read More Biomechanical Expert Permitted to Testify as to Forces, But Not Injuries

Those Romanians – always causing trouble.  First Dracula, now this. (That said, the Romanian I’m married to happens to be perfect.) A New York trial court recently held, in Weason v. Permanent Mission of Romania to the UN and Romania, that defendants were not immune under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act for injuries allegedly sustained…

Read More Romania Not Immune in Slip/Fall Case

The words “technicality” and “loophole” are frequently used to describe certain legal developments or results that, for one reason or another, don’t “seem” right. Unfortunately, they are often used irresponsibly and in a way that perpetuates both ignorance of the law and unfair stereotypes of lawyers as sleazy manipulators. Take, for example, the New York…

Read More On “Technicalities” and “Loopholes”

In Woo v. United Nations Intl. School, 2013 NY Slip Op 51167(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct. July 11, 2013), the court dismissed a personal injury action brought by a high school baseball player. Plaintiff Woo was injured when, as he was preparing to catch a ball thrown by plaintiff’s teammate DeRosa, the ball “glanced off the outer portion…

Read More High School Baseball Player Assumed Risk of Injury; Complaint Dismissed

The New York Supreme Court (New York County) addressed, in OTG Management, LLC v. Konstantinidis, the propriety of injunctive relief in the restrictive covenant context. The court upheld an employment agreement’s non-solicitation, but not non-competition, provisions. In this case, plaintiff OTG hired Mr. Konstantinidis to be an operations manager for its food and beverage services in…

Read More Court Enforces Non-Solicitation, But Not Non-Competition, Employment Contract Provisions

In Krause v. Lancer & Loader Group LLC, 40 Misc.3d 385 (Sup. Ct. NY Cty. May 1, 2013), the court confirms that both the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL) and the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL) recognize claims of pregnancy discrimination, and that she stated such a claim under both laws.…

Read More Plaintiff States Claim for Pregnancy Discrimination Under the New York State and City Human Rights Laws

In NY Statewide Coalition v. NYC DOHMH (NY Sup. Ct. NY Cty. Index 653584/12), the court enjoined the enforcement of NYC Health Code § 81.53 (which prohibits the sale by certain vendors of “sugary drinks” exceeding 16 fluid ounces). In addition to finding that the Rule violated the separation of powers doctrine, Judge Tingling found that…

Read More Viva La Soda! Manhattan Judge Milton Tingling Strikes Down Mayor Bloomberg’s “Soda Ban”