175 East Shore Road, Suite 260
Great Neck, NY 11023
Tel: 516-487-1850
Fax: 516-487-1851
E-mail: info@marinomarino.com
Results
Results for clients include
$1,900,000.00
Car accident case arising in Manhattan, and involving an injured passenger of a vehicle that collided with another motorist. A lawsuit was commenced by Marino & Marino on behalf of the injured passenger, and claims included that the defendant driver failed to yield the right of way, and that he made an improper turn into oncoming traffic. Defense arguments included that the extent of claimed injuries were not caused by the accident and were pre-existing. Damages claims were supported by experts retained by Marino & Marino, including a life care planner/M.D. and an economist/PhD, with regards to economic loss, future cost of medical care, and loss of income as a result of the accident.
$962,671.57
Accident case involving a motorcyclist and a motorist driving a rental car in upstate New York. Marino & Marino represented the motorcyclist, who sustained injuries, and claims against the defendants included that the motorist negligently operated her vehicle, and that the rental car company negligently entrusted the vehicle to the motorist. Defense arguments included that the motorcyclist failed to take proper evasive action prior to the accident occurring, and the rental car company contended that it was insulated from liability due to the Graves Amendment.
$750,000.00
Wrongful death case involving a passenger of a vehicle that drove off a roadway in Queens County. A lawsuit was filed by Marino & Marino on behalf of the estate of the decedent, and against the driver and a local municipality. Liability claims included that the municipality failed to maintain a guardrail at the end of the roadway, and that the municipality's failure to do so was a substantial factor in causing the accident. Claims were supported by experts retained by Marino & Marino, including an accident reconstructionist/P.E. and a forensic pathologist/M.D. Defenses by the municipality included that the driver was the sole proximate cause of the accident, and that the municipality lacked prior written notice of the alleged dangerous condition.
$600,000.00
Slip-and-fall accident due to water leaking from a ceiling vent in an office building in Nassau County, resulting in injuries. A lawsuit was filed by Marino & Marino and on behalf of the injured person and against the building owner and operator. Marino & Marino claimed that the defendants failed to adequately inspect and maintain the premises, thereby leading to the foreseeably hazardous condition which caused the accident and resulting injuries. The defense arguments included that the person's injuries were due to degenerative conditions and not due to the accident, and that the injuries were not serious as the person did not have a surgery. Marino & Marino argued that her injuries and limitations were a direct result of the defendants' negligence, were significant, and warranted just compensation.
Favorable court decisions for clients include
Maharaj, et al, v. Kreidenweis, 214 A.D. 3d 317
Lawsuit against property owners for a slip-and-fall accident due to an icy and dangerous condition on an exterior staircase of rental property in Queens County. The trial court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, thereby dismissing the case, and holding that the defendant property owners were out-of-possession landlords that shared no responsibility for the accident and resulting injuries. On appeal, however, the NYS Appellate Division reversed, and agreed with Marino & Marino, finding that triable issues of fact exist for a jury as to whether the defendants transferred possession and control of the premises, had a duty to remove snow and ice, and knew or should have known of the icy and dangerous condition.
Collins v. United States of America, et al, 996 F3d 102
Pedestrian struck by United States Postal Service truck in Suffolk County brought a lawsuit against defendants under the Federal Torts Claims Act ("FTCA"), including against the driver of the truck, the United States Postal Service, and the United States of America. During the pre-trial discovery process, the government filed a motion to dismiss the case, asserting that there is a lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and the trial court granted the motion. On appeal, however, the Second Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals reversed, holding that as a matter of first impression, where a claimant satisfies the FTCA's presentment requirement, the alleged absence of substantiating evidence does not deprive a federal court of subject matter jurisdiction over an ensuring FTCA action.
Byrd, et al, v. Hughes, et al, 188 A.D.3d 975
Wrongful death case that arose when a pedestrian was fatally struck by a vehicle within the proximity of an ongoing construction project in Suffolk County. A lawsuit was filed against defendants, including against the construction contractors and property owners of the construction site. Claims against the contractors included that they failed to implement proper traffic and pedestrian control at the site, thereby causing the accident. A defendant subcontractor's motion for summary judgment was granted by the trial court, resulting in a case dismissal in relation to that defendant. On appeal, however, the NYS Appellate Division reversed, and agreed with Marino & Marino, holding that triable issues of fact exist for a jury with respect to whether the defendant subcontractor created a dangerous condition that resulted in the accident.
Print
Sitemap
© Marino & Marino, P.C./Attorney advertisement. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. The content provided herein should not be considered as legal advice and is not a substitute for consulting with an attorney. No attorney-client relationship is formed by accessing this website.
