Law Offices of Gary E. Rosenberg, PC

Held: Barnes & Noble failed to meet its burden of proof by not showing when the allegedly wobbly table was last inspected or cleaned before the accident. Its motion is denied and Barnes & Noble remains in this lawsuit. The Starbucks defendants have shown that they owed no legal duty to the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs' papers were not sufficient to raise an issue of fact as to this defendant. Starbucks wins its motion and is dismissed from the case. http://goo.gl/7tiHY8

Held: Plaintiff's cleaning activities constituted routine maintenance and not a "covered activity" entitled to the special protection of the N.Y.S. Labor Law. http://goo.gl/WBRn1r

Held: Summary judgment denied. The school did not meet its burden of showing that it was not negligent in supervision and control of the boys while they wrestled. There are issues of fact as to whether the boy who injured plaintiff had shown violent tendencies towards him, given that they had a history of confrontations. http://goo.gl/bzDMCS

Held: It is obvious that the father wants to use the children's money for "multiple other persons." Father isn't allowed to use the money to support others. Also, father hasn't shown that he can contribute to the house and the judge asks, "Why not rent a house instead?" Purchase of the Florida house and withdrawal of additional monies are denied. Also, since the father seems to be running amuck with the children's money and is not giving the judge a full and clear picture, a new guardian is immediately appointed to oversee the money and figure out what's been spent. http://goo.gl/mQ1WLu

Held: There is an issue of fact as to whether defendant Dozier's vehicle struck plaintiff's motorcycle. The Court changed its mind and reversed it prior decision, denying defendant's summary judgment motion. http://goo.gl/2pJ6NO

Held: The motion for summary judgment by the bus is denied. There is an issue of fact, requiring resolution by a jury, as to whether the bus was negligent in partially blocking a traveling lane of the road and an issue of fact as to whether the bus contributed to the happening of this accident. http://goo.gl/6yVV8E

Held: Issues of fact exist as to NYCHA's negligence in maintaining the hot water system in the building; the sudden change in water temperature requires a jury to determine. NYCHA's motion is denied. http://goo.gl/YHKoKi

Held: Defendants violated safety regulations by failing to insulate or de-energize the ceiling and failing to inspect the area and warn of the electrical shock danger. There is a question of fact as to whether plaintiff was injured by electric shock or by gravity, based on falling from the scaffold (although his harness stopped his fall). http://goo.gl/k7ZtEc

Held: (1) U.S. Steel Corp. (loses) Its product was made into "Liquid Wrench," which plaintiff had on his hands almost daily. He was never warned about the danger, which the company knew about. (2) Safety-Kleen (loses) Plaintiffs' expert established a "causal relationship" between plaintiff's exposure and his illnesses, sufficient to defeat defendant's summary judgment motion. (3) Sears (wins) Sears is let out of the case.... (4) Island Transportation (wins) Island has shown that it is entitled to summary judgment because it didn't deliver to the places plaintiff worked at the times he claims to have been exposed to Benzene. http://goo.gl/T7A2m9

Held: The appeals Court affirms (upholds) the lower court=s ruling relieving defendant of its default in appearing in and defending against plaintiff's accident lawsuit. However, the Court points out that it is risky for a party to ask for affirmative relief in papers opposing a motion without a formal motion of its own. http://goo.gl/NQ4LCT

Held: Bob's Discount Furniture stays in the case because it may be held responsible for the behavior of the unsupervised minors it attracted to its store. Also, while the evidence against Costco appears thin, the Court denies Costco's motion to dismiss and leaves it in the case to permit plaintiff to conduct discovery proceedings against it so as to establish her case. http://goo.gl/gmJm45

Held: Plaintiff had no reason to believe that the police undertook a "special duty" to protect him. He never asked the responding officers for help and the officers did not speak to him alone --- they just told everyone on the street to go home. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is denied. The City's motion for summary judgment is granted and this case is dismissed. Given the serious nature of plaintiff's injury (paralyzed), I suspect there will be an appeal. http://goo.gl/dAUId4

Defendants violated a regulation that required municipal employers to protect their employees from recognized hazards likely to cause injury. Section 205e of the Municipal Law does not stand alone and must be based on a violation of a separate legal requirement -- which has been met here. The defense summary judgment motion is denied. http://goo.gl/a4NS6D