In a personal injury case involving injuries from a recreational activity, it is necessary to show that the injury did not result from an "inherent risk" of the sport.

In a recent decision involving negligent security, the Second Department reversed a jury verdict to a plaintiff who was injured in an attack. The decision illustrates the challenging nature of negligent security cases.

In slip and fall cases involving snow storms, it is necessary to deal with the "storm in progress" rule. A recent case illustrates how the rule is applied.

In Broderick v RY Mgt. Co., Inc., the Court found that a management company was potentially liable for horrific burn injuries to a child.

Appellate Court holds that police were reckless in pursuing car chase, and were responsible for resulting personal injuries.

In a slip and fall case, a defendant must typically  establish, to make out a prima facie entitlement to summary judgment, when it had last inspected an area prior to an accident.  Otherwise, it has not shown that it did not have constructive notice of a condition. In Cignarella v Anjoe-A.J. Mkt., Inc., the plaintiff slipped and fell outside a supermarket, in the area where the shopping carts were located.  The defendant argued that it had a practice of inspecting the area.  The Appellate Division held that this alone was not sufficient: "Based on deposition testimony that this debris was clearly visible at the time plaintiff fell, defendants have not established entitlement to summary judgment as a matter of law. Even if routine maintenance "procedures" were being followed on the date of the accident, simply walking around the supermarket looking for hazardous conditions, without more, would not adequately establish precisely when the area of the

Personal injury settlement must be placed on the record to be effective.

The Court of Appeals handed down a major decision regarding construction accidents, in the case of Runner v. New York Stock Exchange.

In Rodriguez v. City of New York, a decision issued on November 17, the Appellate Division, Second Department, ordered a new trial in a personal injury case, based on inflammatory comments by defense counsel.   The plaintiff had been injured in a construction accident.  Defense counsel made a series of comments that the court found were inflammatory: -- Specifically, in his opening statement, defense counsel stated that Rodriguez, who alleged that he was unable to work as a result of back injuries he sustained from the fall, was disabled due to "lung problems," sepsis, and his treatment with interferon for hepatitis C. In his summation, defense counsel referred to the testimony of Rodriguez's vocational economic analyst as "totally incredible" and a "kind of tweaker." Additionally, during the course of summarizing the testimony of an economic analyst retained by the plaintiffs, defense counsel exclaimed, "[w]hat a liar," when des

Last Friday, Governor Paterson signed into law a major provision, preventing, in most cases, subrogation claims by medical insurance providers.  The text is below.  It provides, in relevant part, that “except where there is a statutory right of reimbursement, no party entering into such a [personal injury] settlement shall be subject to a subrogation claim or claim for reimbursement by a benefit provider and a benefit provider shall have no lien or right of subrogation or reimbursement against any such settling party.”  It establishes a conclusive presumption that no part of a personal injury settlement includes compensation for such past medical expenses as have already been paid by a health care benefit provider.  The law does not prevent liens by Medicare, Medicaid, and Worker's Compensation.    5-335.  LIMITATION  OF  NON-STATUTORY REIMBURSEMENT AND SUBROGATION CLAIMS IN PERSONAL INJURY AND WRONGFUL DEATH ACTIONS. (A)