Statute of Limitations
Fitzgerald & Fitzgerald New York appellate lawyers
persuaded the New York Court of Appeals that the statute of limitations toll for infancy was not terminated by the actions of a guardian. The outcome of this ruling also ensured that infants who are injured at birth can wait to begin an action until the extent of the injuries is known. Read more about the appeals case involving the statute of limitations.
Compliance with Federal Regulations and Negligence
Fitzgerald & Fitzgerald New York appellate lawyers argued this case before the New York Court of Appeals. The issue before the court was whether a person injured by a toy has a cause of action for negligence against the toy manufacturer if the toy complies with federal toy safety regulations. In agreement with Fitzgerald & Fitzgerald, the court ruled that even if the defendants complied with certain federal toy safety regulations, such compliance would not preclude a finding of negligence. Read more about the appeals case involving compliance with federal regulations and negligence.
$7,500,000 - Court Upheld Modified Jury Award
The New York Court of Appeals held that there was sufficient medical testimony from which the jury could rationally conclude that the plaintiff's injuries were proximately caused by the negligence of the appellant. The court further held that the verdict of the plaintiff was not against the weight of the credible evidence. Read more about the appeals case involving a modified jury award.
$6,929,000 - Court Upheld Modified Jury Award
In this case involving a brain-damaged baby, Fitzgerald & Fitzgerald won a $13,629,000 unanimous verdict at trial. The award was reduced to $4,529,000 by the trial court judge, but Fitzgerald & Fitzgerald appealed to the Appellate Division, Third Department, which raised the award back up to $6,929,000. Read more about this case where the court upheld a modified jury award for a brain-damaged baby.
$6,285,772 - Court Upheld Modified Jury Award
This First Department memorandum decision reinstated, but reduced, a $10,000,000 jury verdict awarded to Fitzgerald & Fitzgerald's client, a child who suffered profound mental retardation, spastic quadriplegia, and blindness as the result of medical malpractice at his birth. Read more about this case where the court upheld a modified jury award for birth injuries.
Notice of Lead Paint Hazard
In this lead poisoning case, Fitzgerald & Fitzgerald, persuaded the Appellate Division, Second Department, that plaintiffs presented issues of fact whether the defendant landlords had notice of the lead paint hazard. Because the case arose in Nassau County, the special constructive notice rules applicable to New York City that are highly advantageous to plaintiffs, Juarez v. Wavecrest Management Team, 88 N.Y.2d 628, 672 N.E.2d 135, 649 N.Y.S.2d 115 (1996), did not apply. Read more about this case involving notice of a lead paint hazard.
Motion to be Substituted as Counsel
The Appellate Division, First Department, decided two personal injury cases arising out of the same occurrence, an automobile accident. Fitzgerald & Fitzgerald, P.C., represented one injured party and later made a successful motion to represent the other injured party. Read more about the case involving the motion to be substituted as counsel.
Prima Facia Case for Negligence
This case involved a movie theater usher who was assaulted by patrons. The First Department reversed the lower court's decision, which did not allow an expert witness to testify and ultimately dismissed the case for not stating a prima facie case. The First Department ruled that the plaintiff did state a prima facie case for negligence, and that a jury should have been permitted to decide on it. The First Department also held that plaintiff's witness met the qualifications of an expert and should have been allowed to testify as to the facts surrounding the assault and as to his knowledge of prior and unruly behavior, especially since the lower court had dismissed plaintiff's case because of lack of proof of notice. Read more about the case involving stating a prima facia case for negligence.
$3,000,000 - Court Upheld Modified Jury Award
Plaintiff incurred periventricular leukomalacia, spastic diplegia cerebral palsy, and hydrocephalus as a result of defendants' medical malpractice in failing to administer appropriate therapy to her mother prior to childbirth. The jury returned a $7,500,000 award for plaintiff, which the Supreme Court, Westchester County, refused to set aside. The Appellate Division, Second Department, eventually sustained an award of $3,000,000. Read more about this case involving a modified jury award for cerebral palsy.
$1,905,000 - Court Upheld Modified Jury Award
In this case, Fitzgerald & Fitzgerald, P.C., won a plaintiff's verdict of $5,355,000. The Appellate Division, Second Department, sustained an award in the principal amount of $1,905,000. The plaintiff's injuries included cerebral palsy and periventricular leukomalacia (PVL). Read more about this case involving a modified jury award for child with PVL.
$518,500 - Jury Award Sustained
In this premises liability case, the jury awarded a superintendent $518,500 against the owner of a building who failed to prevent drug activity in the building, leading to the superintendent's assault. After the Supreme Court dismissed plaintiff's first cause of action for failure to prove a prima facie case, the Appellate Division, First Department, reversed and reinstated the $518,500 award. Read more about this appeals case where the court sustained a jury award in a premises liability case.
$500,000 - Reinstatement of Jury Award and Negligence Theories
The Court of Appeals' opinion in this case decided two negligent security cases. Fitzgerald & Fitzgerald, P.C., represented the plaintiffs in the case involving one party, and was successful. The Court of Appeals made clear its opinion that cases based upon inadequate security due to negligence of landlords should be treated in accordance with traditional theories of negligence. The Court rejected the precedent of the Appellate Division, First Department, which held plaintiffs in such cases to a higher standard of care and would make it almost impossible for plaintiffs to prove that their assailants had been intruders if they had not been specifically identified. The implication of a simple negligence standard in inadequate security cases is that a greater majority of cases can now be decided by juries. Read more about this appeals case involving the reinstatement of a jury award and ruling regarding inadequate security and negligence theory.
PRIOR RESULTS DO NOT GUARANTEE A SIMILAR OUTCOME
|
 |
|
