MSG Attorney At Law  Fighting for your rights!  Free Consultation
349 E. 51st Street,
5RW, New York, NY 10022
    Contact: (646)770-4366
 
                      
Articles and News
There was an error retrieving your RSS feed


Mark was recently interviewed on the John and Ken Show on WOR radio
regarding one of his clients who was injured as a result of tripping and falling over the Citibike bike rack.  You may listen to the interview by clicking the link below and forwarding the podcast to approximately 21:30 minutes.

john_and_ken_3_1380795931.mp3
17.6 MB





Additionally, the New York Daily News interviewed Mark.  The article is set forth below.

Daily News Article
October 2, 2012

Citi Bike program hit with first two personal injury claims 

A pair of pedestrians have moved to sue the city over injuries they say they sustained when they tripped on the bicycle parking stations earlier this year.









032770/JB NICHOLAS for the NEW YORK DAILY NEWS

Citi Bike docking stations are more than just parking spot destroyers — they're health hazards, legal filings say.

A pair of pedestrians have moved to sue the city over injuries they say they sustained when they tripped on the bicycle parking stations earlier this year.

Lashonne Shelton, 50, and Howard Orlick, 52, have filed notices of claim - the first step towards suing the city - charging they were the victims of a "trap-like" condition created by the racks.

RELATED: CITI BIKE IS STUCK IN FIRST GEAR

The filings with the city Controller's office are the first personal injury claims stemming from the controversial and popular program, which launched this past May.

Shelton, a single mother of two adult children who works for the NYPD, said she was walking by Centre and Worth Streets in Lower Manhattan when she took a tumble on a newly installed dock there in April.

"It's our claim the bike rack was positioned in a manner that created a dangerous and defective condition," said her lawyer, Mark Grodberg.

RELATED: CITIBIKE MEMBERS' DATA 'BRIEFLY ACCESSIBLE'

Shelton suffered neck, back and leg injuries as a result of the fall, and was treated at a hospital. Grodberg said some of her injuries "may be permanent."

The lawyer said his client, a lifelong Brooklyn resident, isn't a fan of the program.

"She understands the bike system is good for the tourists, but she notes that it's also a significant nuisance," Grodberg said.

RELATED: MMA FIGHT OR CITI BIKE: WHICH IS SAFER?

Orlick had his run-in with a dock near Union Square on May 5, about three weeks before the program launched.

The legally blind Orlick said he hurt his ankle when he took a tumble thanks to an optical illusion created by the dock, the street and the sidewalk.

"Visually, it looks l like the bike rack is on the sidewalk, because it is the same color as the sidewalk. However, it actually is the street," he wrote. "May I suggest you paint the bike rack base a different color, like black?"

He said he'll be seeking $500 in damages to cover his medical costs. Shelton is seeking $1 million.

A rep for the city Law Department had no immediate comment.

The filings were first reported Wednesday by DNAinfo.com.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/citi-bike-program-hit-personal-injury-claims-article-1.1474234#ixzz2gb9Gn5QQ


Below is a summary of the following article by Mark S. Grodberg regarding the New York City laws addressing Lead Paint poisoning.  It was originally published in its entirety on August 9, 2006.  

New York landlords shoulder responsibility for lead paint

In New York, where a preponderance of city housing is rented, the responsibility and abatement for not only lead-based paint, but any chipped or peeling paint within a building where a child age six or younger resides rests squarely on the shoulders of landlords. In fact, the New York state and city government Courts have determined that today's landlords should take financial responsibility for past generations of improper lead use in New York.

Since lead paint liability legislation continues to evolve in New York City it banned the use of lead-based paint for interior building surfaces in 1960.

Further legislation also resulted in the requirement to remediate existing lead paint--an enormous undertaking seeing that 55% of the City's housing units were built prior to 1950, with many of those units situated in low-income neighborhoods. The challenge facing the City was to identify the scope of the health risk while developing an administrative and enforcement system to oversee the abatement of lead paint.

The deteriorating conditions of many buildings and the development of scientific and medical research on the effects of lead paint exposure led the New York City Council in 1982 to direct owners of multiple dwelling units to remove or cover lead-based paint in apartments inhabited by children age six or younger. As such, this local law represented the City's attempt to define obligations for the abatement of existing interior lead paint conditions.

This statute creates a presumption that peeling paint in any multiple dwelling erected prior to January 1, 1960 where a child age six or under resided constituted lead-based paint for abatement purposes, regardless of whether the paint in question is lead-based or not.

As it stands today, a landlord may be held liable for injury caused by defective or dangerous conditions within leased premises if the landlord is under a statutory or contractual duty to maintain the premises in good repair.

Local Law 1 further states that for a landlord to be held liable for injuries resulting by a lead hazard, he/she must have "actual" or "constructive" notice (constructive notice constructive notice n. a fiction that a person got notice even though actual notice was not personally delivered to him/her).  The issue of notice has been litigated extensively and a attorney should be consulted when determining whether an action may be maintained on this basis. 

However, as written, the New York City laws create "constructive" notice of a dangerous lead paint condition based upon proof of chipping or peeling paint and a landlord's awareness that a child age six or younger lives in his/ her building.

While a landlord can demonstrate that the paint in question is not lead based and therefore not inherently dangerous (as is certainly the case in some situations), the New York City Courts place the responsibility of abating the lead paint hazard squarely on the shoulders of landlords.

The laws regarding lead paint violations are complex and anyone with potential lawsuit should consult with legal counsel.

This article is intended as a guideline and should not to be relied upon as legal binding advice.  The entire article may be viewed at:

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/New+York+landlords+shoulder+responsibility+for+lead +paint.-a0150453805)

 

Website Builder