From: New York attorney Gary E. Rosenberg (personal injury and accident attorney and lawyer; serving Brooklyn Queens Bronx; Bronx Injury Lawyer)

This story unfolded gradually. It started as a report of an unidentified 39 year-old woman killed Friday night (January 29, 2010) at about 8 PM while crossing Broadway near West 90^th Street when she was struck by a car - a late model Ford or Dodge - that drove off, leaving the driver unidentified. The victim was struck so hard she was knocked out of her boots.

The pedestrian died from her injuries and was pronounced dead at St Luke's-Roosevelt Hospital Center. Police were checking into he possibility that the driver had robbed a nearby CVS pharmacy and was fleeing.

Facts have been trickling in, and the story taking shape. We have now learned that the dead victim was named Karen Schmeer and that she was an award-winning documentary film editor.

We now also know that the accident started with a shoplifting crime: three men stealing over-the-counter drugs from an Upper West side CVS Pharmacy.

At the time that Karen Schmeer was killed, cops were chasing the car carrying the shoplifters. Although the men fled the car after it crashed, police were able to arrest the driver, David McKie, age 25, of Coral Gables, Florida, and Brooklyn, New York. The search continues for the other perpetrators.

From: New York attorney Gary E. Rosenberg (personal injury and accident attorney and lawyer; serving Brooklyn Queens Bronx; Bronx Injury Attorney)

In a press release, United States Secretary of Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood announced new Federal guidelines yesterday (January 27, 2010) to prohibit interstate drivers of large vehicles, such as trucks and buses, from sending text messages while driving. Truck drivers and bus drivers who violate the rule may face penalties of as much as $2,750.

Research by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration shows that text-messaging drivers take their eyes off the road an average of 4.6 seconds out of every 6 seconds. In a vehicle moving at 55 miles an hour, the driver can travel the distance of a football field - more than 100 yards - without looking at the road. More importantly, bus and truck drivers who text message while driving have a twenty times greater likelihood of getting into a motor vehicle accident than drivers who are not distracted.

The Department of Transportation Department is also exploring limiting the use of dashboard computers, which truck drivers commonly use while driving to stay in touch with their dispatchers.

Citizens can monitor the efforts of the Department of Transportation to fight distracted drivers at www.distraction.gov, which bills itself as the "Official U.S. Government Website for Distracted Driving" - which is a pretty darn silly name. It should really call itself the "Official U.S. Government Website Against Distracted Driving"

Comment: Loyal Readers may recall my blog of December 18, 2009 where I reported that New York State banned testing while driving by passing Vehicle and Traffic Law Section 1225-d. The statute prohibits using any "portable electronic device," which seems to make New York State a little bit ahead of the Federal Government in promoting driver safety.

From: New York attorney Gary E. Rosenberg (personal injury and accident attorney and lawyer; serving Brooklyn Queens Bronx; Brooklyn Injury Lawyer)

Annoying, indeed, is trying to get your car or motorcycle fixed post-accident or replacing a hopelessly damaged car or motorcycle that has been labeled a total loss.

Generally speaking, you may recover the cost of repairs after a crash if the other vehicle was negligent. "Total loss" occurs when the cost of repairs is greater than your automobile or motorcycle's fair market value.

In a total loss situation where you are permitted to keep the wreck, than the value of the car or motorcycle right before accident may be given to you, minus the salvage value - what a junk dealer will pay for your vehicle after the crash.

If your car or motorcycle is a total loss, you may be disappointed at the amount that the other insurance company is claiming that your vehicle was worth. Your best way to fight back is to find out the value of your used vehicle. You can check the websites for the National Automobile Dealers Association or Kelly's Blue Book for starters. If you recently purchased custom accessories for your vehicle, such as a top of the line audio or video system, show the adverse insurance company the receipt for your purchase; you may get a higher settlement offer.

If you think the insurance carrier's property damage settlement offer is unfair, you may want to make a complaint to the New York State Insurance Department.

If you have collision coverage, than just report the claim to your own insurance company. You may have to pay the deductible out of pocket, but your company should try to recover your deductible for you from the other insurance company, assuming the other driver is at fault. Under the New York State Administrative Code (Title 11, Section 216.7), your own insurance carrier has six days to inspect your vehicle after it is notified of the loss, or else you can go ahead and have it repaired. Also the New York State regulation mentioned above also obligates your insurance company to negotiate your collision damage claim with you "in good faith."

Most important is that you report all accidents to your insurance company promptly. I've gotten too many telephone calls from people that delayed reporting an accident to their own insurance carrier while they tried to work it out with the other side. Then they may face a problem with what is known as "late notice." Their insurance company may even disclaim and refuse to pay for the loss. This can be especially devastating if someone in the other vehicle who, perhaps, seemed fine when the accident occurred, now claims to be hurt or suffer from a serious injury. Don't make that mistake. I repeat, report all accidents to your insurance company promptly.

From: New York attorney Gary E. Rosenberg (personal injury and accident attorney and lawyer; serving Brooklyn Queens Bronx; Brooklyn Accident Lawyer)

Several months ago in November, 2009 Toyota Motors issued a massive recall - the largest in Toyota history - of 4,200,000 cars, trucks and SUVs. It seems that gas pedals were getting jammed down by floor mats, causing a risk of accidents and catastrophic injury. Toyota suggested that vehicle owners remove the mats until it could think of a proper fix. That problem (leading to the November recall) was associated with several accidents, including a car going out of control involving a Lexus in California that reached speeds greater than 120 mph before crashing and killing four people.

On Thursday January 20, 2010 Toyota announced the recall of an additional 2,300,000 cars, trucks and SUVs. Apparently their accelerator pedals are getting stuck, even without floor mats to jam them down. The vehicle's throttle can stick in the open position, and braking may not stop the car. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is investigating two accidents in Texas and New Jersey. Four people died on December 26, 2009 near Dallas when a Toyota Avalon left the road and flew into a pond. Police found the floor mats in the Avalon's trunk. No accidents or personal injuries have been reported in New York.

Some 1,700,000 motor vehicles are included in both separate recalls, including Toyota's famous Camry.

So there's no misunderstanding Dear Readers, when accelerator pedals get stuck in the down position cars experience "sudden unintended acceleration," a phrase which sends shivers down the spine of motor vehicle company executives from New York to Nova Scotia. Why? Because we're talking about high speed loss-of-control-type driving that can kill and maim and cause serious injury or death. Not good for the reputation of a manufacturer of cars, trucks and SUVs.  Stock prices can drop, sales can drop, and personal injury lawyers can line up to sue for compensatory money damages or even punitive damages (to punish gross recklessness, negligence or carelessness).

For this latest recall Toyota issued a press release rather quickly, before even sending letters to car owners. This is probably as a result of an upcoming news report from ABC broadcasting network.

According to Toyota's press release, it is recalling the following vehicles:

• 2009-10 RAV4
• 2009-10 Corolla
• 2009-10 Matrix
• 2005-10 Avalon
• 2007-10 Camry
• 2010 Highlander
• 2007-10 Tundra
• 2008-10 Sequoia

Comment: The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued a statement saying that the problem is "a serious safety issue and we are pleased Toyota is taking immediate action to address it."

From: New York attorney Gary E. Rosenberg (personal injury and accident attorney and lawyer; serving Brooklyn Queens Bronx; Bronx Injury Attorney)

Dated: January 21, 2010

The United States Consumer Products Safety Commission announced today that Lifetime Brands Inc. of Garden City, New York has recalled its Pedrini brand fruit and vegetable chopper.

About 6000 units have been sold. The chopper's metal blades can break and fall into food being prepared in the chopper - which presents risk of serious injury if swallowed. Not an accident that anyone wants to have.

This product, manufactured in China, cost about $25.00 and was sold at Sam's Clubs late last year (2009).

Comment: The Pedrini brand was started in Italy in 1942, and sells a wide range of table and kitchen tools. New York-based Lifetime Brands states on its website that its goal is (in part) to

develop innovative products. It seems that the company looks for inventors to work with.

From: New York attorney Gary E. Rosenberg (personal injury and accident attorney and lawyer; serving Brooklyn Queens Bronx; Queens Accident Lawyer)

Accidents occur each day on the road, in the doctor's office, at work and even at home. Many times a person will suffer from an injury even though the accident was not their fault. Injuries that are sustained could include physical, emotional or mental damage. Negligence is usually the cause of personal injury court cases, though sometimes it is malicious. If you have been the victim of someone else's mistake, you could be entitled to compensation. How can you find out? By hiring an experienced injury attorney from your area of New York, you can learn what kind of a case you have and how much money you could be entitled to.

Monetary compensation in accident cases is important for covering the cost of medical rehabilitation and lost wages. Your personal injury attorney can file many different kinds of claims depending on your situation. The first and most common is simply known as "pain and suffering." With an injury and a hurt undoubtedly comes discomfort, at the least. While money cannot put a stop to the emotional and physical traumas you may have suffered, it is often the only way for a judge to compensate you for your pain.

Compensatory damages can be claimed and filed by your injury attorney to cover future costs of treatment for your injury. Your insurance company will likely pay for the immediate bills, but ongoing treatment may be necessary for more serious accidents. Another type of personal injury damages is known as consortium compensation, which can be filed by your New York personal injury attorney if the injuries sustained are life-altering and bring with them permanent disabilities. Every injury attorney wishes they could do more than compensate you monetarily for such a loss, but unfortunately, it is impossible to provide you with anything more.

Punitive damages are compensation you can receive for the purpose of punishing the perpetrator. This can only be filed by your personal injury attorney if it is decided that the accident was truly not an accident, but an almost purposeful attempt to harm you - gross negligence or recklessness is the most common standard. This kind of compensation may be awarded to you if the court feels the usual compensation is not sufficient for the damage you have sustained physically, emotionally, or mentally. Getting the most compensation possible is more likely with the employment of a highly-proficient injury accident lawyer. To begin your journey down the path to healing and restoring your regular life, contact a New York personal injury lawyer near where you live or work, whether in Brooklyn, Queens, Bronx or Manhattan.

From: New York attorney Gary E. Rosenberg (personal injury and accident attorney and lawyer; serving Brooklyn Queens Bronx; Queens Injury Attorney)

51 year-old Richard Barton of Suffolk County was struck and killed on Sunday (1/17/2010) while walking in the roadway - the eastbound traffic lane of Pulaski Road, near West Point Drive, in East Northport, Long Island, New York.

A Dodge Caravan operated by Vinton Simms, age 77, of East Northport, hit Barton on a dark portion of the roadway. Simms and Barton were both taken to Huntington Hospital, where Simms complained of a knee injury. Barton was pronounced dead.

No criminal charges are expected.

From: New York attorney Gary E. Rosenberg (personal injury and accident attorney and lawyer; serving Brooklyn Queens Bronx; Queens Injury Attorney)

An as yet unnamed 32 year-old driver was killed and his passengers hurt and injured when their car hit a pothole, went out-of-control, and struck a telephone pole in Brooklyn in the early hours of Monday morning (1/18/2010). Reportedly, they were heading home from a night of clubbing.

The motorist was driving on Kings Highway near Tilden when his 2002 Honda Odyssey minivan struck the pothole and then the pole, throwing him out of the car. Witnesses say the driver was sucked underneath the van.

He died at the scene. Five passengers suffered injury. No criminal charges are expected.

Comment: Perhaps not an avoidable accident; but an avoidable death. Dear Readers this is my New Year's resolution: "That you all wear your seatbelts!"

From:  New York attorney Gary E. Rosenberg (personal injury and accident attorney and lawyer; serving Brooklyn Queens Bronx; Bronx Injury Attorney)

Missouri teenager Jimmy Winkelmann had a cute and clever idea, as teenagers often do. The 19 year-old needed help paying for college and decided to start a line of clothing that parodied mega-clothing maker The North Face. Now Winkelmann had a sense that he was playing with fire, because he posted a (clever) disclaimer on his web site:

Winkelmann's The South Butt line of jackets, shirts and shorts carry the "The South Butt" logo and operate under the pronouncement, "Never Stop Relaxing," a gimmicky turn of The North Face's motto, "Never Stop Exploring." The North Face logo has a downward-sloped looking "slope" on the right-hand side of the company name; The South Butt's logo is to the left of its name and, in a different font, and carries an opposite curve, looking a little like, well, a butt.

The North Face is owned by VF Corporation, whose website proclaims it "the world's largest apparel company," and "a $7 billion plus powerhouse."

Showing no sense of humor whatsoever, The North Face sued The South Butt in Federal Court in St. Louis for trademark infringement, to force The South Butt to stop on-line selling of spoof T-shirts, fleece jackets and sweatshirts. If anything, this heavy-handed approach increased The North Face's own damages, by giving media exposure to a tiny flea of a competitor well beyond what would have been The South Butt's proverbial "15 minutes of fame."

So this little accident and collision between The North Face and The South Butt - drawing the ire of The North Face, which has decided to play hardball - may pay Winkelmann's way through four years of college and then some. That is if legal costs don't eat him alive and kill his business.

The pundits are asking all the yentas out there in cyberspace to pick a side: "Never Stop Suing" or "Turn the Other Cheek?"

From: New York attorney Gary E. Rosenberg (personal injury and accident attorney and lawyer; serving Brooklyn Queens Bronx; Bronx Injury Lawyer)

When Guillermo Castro, age 46, was stopped by New York City narcotics officers on the afternoon of January 14, 2010, he quickly backed up, knocking down and injuring an as yet unnamed detective. Showing uninterrupted bad judgment, he then raced his car northbound up Ninth Avenue in Manhattan, not caring that Ninth Avenue is a one-way southbound street. Fortunately, he didn't cause an accident or hurt anyone else.

A spokesman for the NYPD said that the officer suffered injury to one of his legs. A second cop was also hit in the leg but his injury was not as serious. Both policemen were treated at Bellevue Hospital Center.

Castro was caught at 40th Street and Ninth Avenue. Drugs were found in his Nissan Maxima. Criminal charges are pending.

From: New York attorney Gary E. Rosenberg (personal injury and accident attorney and lawyer; serving Brooklyn Queens Bronx; Brooklyn Injury Attorney)

Many drivers think that motorcycle riders are authors of their own mishaps, that they are carefree and careless and disregard the health of themselves, their passengers and other people on the road. However, studies show that most people hurt in a motorcycle accident are injured through the negligence of another driver.

Often forgotten is that drivers of cars, trucks or buses may fail to pay attention to motorcycles. They may not hear the bike; they may not see it. As a result, there are several common types of car versus motorcycle and truck versus motorcycle accidents.

Most common is a vehicle making a left turn in front of a motorcycle. If the bike doesn't have sufficient stopping room the rider is presented with just two choices, either of which typically leads to injury: (1) put the bike on the ground and slide and hope not to hit the other vehicle or not to hit it too hard, or, (2) hit the other vehicle broadsides, and hope that your flight through the air after you're unseated from your bike is not fatal.

Other types of accidents are:

• Vehicles striking motorcycles in the rear (the rear-ender);
• Lane changes by cars or trucks or buses without signaling;
• Another vehicle right-turning from the center lane and not seeing a motorcycle to its right;
• Cars or trucks forcing motorcycles into a guard rail; and,
• Vehicles "eating" a red light or stop sign without noticing the motorcycle.

There are few minor or "little" injuries where a motorcycle collides with another vehicle. Motorcycle accidents tend to result in catastrophic injuries because of the size and weight difference between a motorcycle and the other motor vehicle involved in the accident. Furthermore, many vehicles have protective cages built in. Not so with a bike, where the rider is open and exposed except for (hopefully) a helmet and protective clothing.

Motorcycle accidents frequently result in wrongful death.

Bike operators may also suffer motorcycle a multitude of other hurts, such as:

• Brain damage;
• Spinal cord injury, including paralysis;
• Fractured or broken bones;
• Neck and back "soft tissue"-type injuries;
• Injury to the shoulder joint or knee joint;
• Scarring and disfigurement;
• Road rash requiring skin grafts from other parts of the body;
• Burns from hot motorcycle parts;
• Amputation of extremities, such as arm(s) or leg(s).

There are strict time limitations for initiating motorcycle accident claims in New York. Also, No-Fault motor vehicle insurance does NOT apply, so getting bills paid can be difficult for riders with no heath insurance. Finally, miss a deadline, and your claim might be lost forever.

From: New York attorney Gary E. Rosenberg (personal injury and accident attorney and lawyer; serving Brooklyn Queens Bronx; Queens accident lawyer)

First Dept.

Admitted to Bar: 1989

This story is like the proverbial tip of the iceberg. Lawyer Weinstein settled his client's car accident case for $15,000. The client signed papers sent to her by the lawyer to complete the settlement, and returned the papers to the lawyer.

Now the decision doesn't say this, but we accident lawyers know that when an accident case settles the insurance company, at the time it sends its settlement check, by law must always send a short letter directly to the lawyer's client stating that it has mailed the settlement check to the lawyer. This rule is in force for a simple reason: so the client knows money is coming, and to discourage that rare attorney with larceny in his or her heart from stealing.

This did not help the client here. Lawyer Weinstein was ordered to produce his bank records and did so. The records show the $15,000 settlement money deposited into his lawyer escrow bank account and that he took a $5,000 (a) fee. Despite the lawyer's claim that he gave the client $10,000, his bank records did not show that. The records did show that he paid rent and utility bills and mixed the escrow money in with his personal money; huge "no, noes."

Once a lawyer is found taking client's money, he's immediately shut down by license suspension - as happened here. This is to protect the public from harm by preventing the lawyer from using his license to steal any further. But unstated is the notion that if the lawyer has been caught this time, it's likely not his first time stealing and he probably robbed accident settlement money from other clients (usually the most helpless or hurt or easy to steal from), and the full extent of his thieving ways has yet to be determined.

Stay tuned Dear Readers, we haven't seen the last of the damage and injury caused by lawyer Weinstein. Piled on top of the physical injury visited upon his client/accident victims - the most important of which are the clients he ripped off - and the least important of which carries pain nevertheless - giving plaintiffs' personal injury attorneys yet another "black eye."

From: New York attorney Gary E. Rosenberg (personal injury and accident attorney and lawyer; serving Brooklyn Queens Bronx; Bronx Accident Lawyer)

Sunday morning, January 10^th, Marc Napolitano and Katelyn Lonergan, both age 19, died at the scene of a 3-car crash in upstate New York.

Napolitano was driving west on Route 23 near the Town of Windham when his automobile crossed over the center line and struck two oncoming eastbound vehicles.

Napolitano's Honda struck was a 2008 Audi driven by a Hoboken, N.J., resident, and then a 1999 Ford SUV driven by an upstate New York resident.

The driver and two passengers in the Ford were hurt and taken to Albany Medical Center with minor injuries. No one in the Audi was hurt in the crash.

Authorities are investigating to try to determine why the Honda crossed over the center of the roadway.

From: New York attorney Gary E. Rosenberg (personal injury and accident attorney and lawyer; serving Brooklyn Queens Bronx; Brooklyn Accident Lawyer)

This toy is shaped like a hammer. The business part of the hammer and its reverse are cups. There is also a cup in the bottom of the handle. On top of the toy is a spike, that receives a wooden ball with a small hole it. The ball also has a string attaching it to the "hammer." You play by flipping the ball off the top spike and catching it in one of the three cups. In Japan this is an organized sport.

About 300 of these toys, which is known as Kendama, have been sold in the U.S.A. and are recalled because the paint on the ball - it may be red or green - has lead in it. A Japanese Kendama Association sticker is attached to the toy.

The toy was manufactured in Japan and sold through Kendamaspot's Web site and festivals in Washington State in 2008 and 2009, for about $20.00.

For additional information, visit the firm's Web site at www.kendamaspot.com

From: New York attorney Gary E. Rosenberg (personal injury and accident attorney and lawyer; serving Brooklyn Queens Bronx; Bronx injury lawyer)

This legal opinion starts off very drily. The big picture is of an attorney that took $5,000 from an inmate's family to make a motion to seek a reduction of the inmate's 14 year Federal prison sentence, with an additional $10,000 to be paid to the attorney after the motion was made. So far, so good. Seems that she took the money and didn't do the work. Sad and all too common among certain bad apples in the legal profession. But then the plot thickens (or sickens).

Saghir was hired by the inmate's family and then had the motion prepared by another prisoner, a "jailhouse lawyer" who was a client of Saghir. The complaint of the prisoner whose family paid attorney Saghir $5,000 (about Saghir's representation of him) started the disciplinary process.

In response to numerous attempts by the disciplinary authorities to investigate, letters were written, subpoenas for records served and depositions requested. Several adjournments and extensions of time were granted to Saghir at her request.

Saghir basically asserted her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination or threatened to assert her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination across-the-board. In a civil proceeding (unlike in a criminal case), this right permits "adverse inferences" to be made against the person asserting the right. Furthermore, some of the records sought, such as bank account records, retainer agreements and such, are required by law to be kept by an attorney, and are not subject to "pleading the Fifth."

A quote from the decision:

"On September 9, 2009, the day before her response to the Statement of Charges was due, Respondent submitted a letter . . .in which she stated that she had resigned from the bar of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit...".

Another quote from the decision:

"Respondent submitted a letter of resignation to the bar of the United State District Court for the Eastern District of New York on the same day. On September 17, 2009, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York ordered that Respondent's name be stricken from the roll of attorneys of that Court."

Lawyer Saghir then tried, unsuccessfully, to withdraw as the inmate's counsel.

That inmate gave a deposition (oral question and answer session) to the disciplinary authorities. (And here it gets realy interesting.)

He testified that he learned about attorney Saghir's services through the "jailhouse lawyer" after he saw a flyer advertising the legal services of the "Federal Imprisonment Reduction Experts, LLC," or "F.I.R.E.," in the prison library.

The "jailhouse lawyer" told the other prisoner that the flyer described services that attorney Saghir could provide, and that he worked with Saghir. (It turns out that "F.I.R.E." was run by Saghir's brother.) The "jailhouse lawyer" chased clients and did the paperwork, which attorney Saghir signed off on. The "jailhouse lawyer" told the other inmate that Saghir had analyzed the case and determined that the fee for her services would be $15,000. $5,000 was to be paid up front, and the remaining $10,000 to be paid after the inmate won his motion and was released from prison.

The inmate testified that members of his family met with lawyer Saghir in her Brooklyn office, paid her $5,000, and received a receipt. He further testified that after Saghir was paid $5,000, he saw the "jailhouse lawyer" typing the papers in the prison library. The inmate then signed the papers, and was told by the jailhouse lawyer that he had sent the papers to Saghir.

The inmate testified that he never had any direct contact with Saghir. All communication with her was conducted through the "jailhouse lawyer" or the inmate's family. The complaining inmate wrote to attorney Saghir, seeking her opinion of his present situation and asking her to respond in writing. He got no response and his family was unable to get her on the telephone after her she was hired in April 2007.

As I previously pointed out, documents and information were sought from Saghir, and not provided by her. She repeatedly invoked her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. This was no accident, as she had a lot to hide.

The disciplinary investigation picked up steam when the authorities checked prison records and found:

(1) From April 21, 2007 through September 16, 2008, the "jailhouse lawyer" received 14 separate payments from Saghir or her brother Faizan Saghir. The payments total $5,450. The individual payments range from $200 to $750 and were made on a nearly monthly basis.

(2) Three of the visits to the jailhouse lawyer occurred between January 2008 and April 2008--during the time attorney Saghir claims to have required bed rest as much as possible and was supposedly unable to make a prison visit to the complaining inmate.

(3) The Federal prison maintains a log of incoming correspondence that has been marked by the sender as "Special Mail" a designation which may be used by attorneys and courts, as well as certain other legal and governmental entities, and which is intended to ensure that the correspondence will be opened only in the presence of the inmate. From February 2007 through April 2008, the "jailhouse lawyer" received "Special Mail" from attorney Saghir 12 separate times.

(4) From April 1, 2007 to October 1, 2008, attorney Saghir did not send any "Special Mail" to the complaining inmate (her client).

Prison records show that from April 1, 2007 through February 2009, the "jailhouse lawyer" and attorney Saghir spoke regularly, often on a daily basis, and at times more than once a day. Recording made by the prison indicate that the "jailhouse lawyer" asked attorney Saghir to provide him with information concerning cases against other individuals.

It appears that the "jailhouse lawyer" asked attorney Saghir for this kind of information on a regular basis, and that some of the individuals mentioned in the calls are both inmates at the Federal prison and clients of Saghir. Furthermore, on numerous occasions, the "jailhouse lawyer" informed Saghir that certain individuals would be contacting her, they discussed specific amounts of money that would be charged to these individuals, and the "jailhouse lawyer" often determined and communicated, to Saghir and to the potential clients, the fee to be charged for Saghir's services.

Investigating counsel received letter complaints about attorney Saghir from a number of other inmates at the Federal prison.

Retained Saghir through his family in June 2007 based on a recommendation from the "jailhouse lawyer." Prisoner A's family paid Saghir $30,000 to represent him in connection with a motion to obtain a sentence reduction. Shortly after hiring Saghir, Prisoner A filed a pro se [without a lawyer] motion prepared by the "jailhouse lawyer."

Prisoner A subsequently filed several more pro se submissions, all of which were prepared by the "jailhouse lawyer." Prisoner A asserted that he never had any direct communication with Saghir the course of the representation, that Saghir did no work on his behalf, and that Saghir failed to appear to represent Prisoner A at a hearing even after she assured Prisoner A's family that she would attend.

At some point in the spring of 2009, Saghir met with Prisoner A at Federal prison to discuss the return of the retainer. Saghir told Prisoner A that she would return his family's retainer and would send him a document setting forth certain terms regarding the return of the fee, but she did not do so.

Testified that he retained attorney Saghir in July 2007 after being told by "jailhouse lawyer"

that Saghir could assist him in reducing his sentence or getting released from prison. "Jailhouse lawyer" informed Prisoner B that Saghir's fee would be $7,000, and that $3,500 must be paid upfront. A Western Union receipt showed that Prisoner B's wife wired $2,000 to Saghir on July 6, 2007, and wired $1,500 to another individual on July 7, 2007. Prisoner B testified that the July 7 payment was made pursuant to instructions from "jailhouse lawyer."

Shortly after paying the retainer fee, Prisoner B submitted several pro se motions, all of which were authored by "jailhouse lawyer." Prisoner B testified that neither he nor his wife had any communications with attorney Saghir, despite numerous attempts to contact her.

Prisoner C stated that he retained Saghir through his family in September 2007 after learning about her from "jailhouse lawyer." He testified that he never had any communication with attorney Saghir and that Saghir conducted no work on his behalf.

Saghir told Prisoner C's aunt that the fee would be $3,000 to represent Prisoner C in connection with his appeal, and that Saghir would provide Prisoner C's aunt with a retainer agreement after receiving payment. Prisoner C's aunt stated that she sent Saghir a cashier's check for $3,000, but never received a retainer agreement and, despite numerous attempts to contact Saghir, never heard from her.

The disciplinary authorities found discipline justified because of the facts established during the course of the investigation, as well as the adverse inferences drawn from lawyer Saghir's reliance on her Fifth Amendment privilege and her failure to respond to demands for documents not subject to privilege.

From: New York attorney Gary E. Rosenberg (personal injury and accident attorney and lawyer; serving Brooklyn Queens Bronx; Queens Injury Attorney)

A: This may seem an obvious point, but where all riders are required to wear helmets, motorcyclist death, injury, and the severity of the accident, decrease.

Some examples of helmet laws and their effect:

In 1992 California passed a helmet law that mandated helmets for all riders. Helmet use increased to 99% of riders from 50% prior to passage of the law. During that same period, the number of motorcyclist deaths in California fell by 37% percent to 327 in 1992 from 523 in 1991.

Nebraska re-enacted its helmet law in 1989 after repealing an earlier law in 1977. The state then realized a 22% drop in serious head injuries among motorcycle riders.

From 1968 until 1977, Texas had a universal helmet law, which was liberalized in 1977 to only require helmet use by riders under age 18. Texas blamed this weakened law for a 35% increase in motorcyclist deaths. In 1989 it re-passed its helmet law for all motorcycle riders. Helmet wearing increased from 41% to 90% and to 98% by June of 1990. But in 1997, Texas once again weakened its helmet law, requiring helmets only for riders under age 21. By 1998 helmet use in Texas dropped to 66%, and fatal crashes by motorcycle drivers increased by 31% in the first full year following the enactment of the weakened helmet law.

In 1998 Kentucky repealed its universal helmet use law. In 1999 Louisiana did the same. These actions resulted in lower helmet use, and motorcycle deaths quickly increased by 50% in Kentucky and by 100% in Louisiana.

As I previously noted, in year 2000 Florida weakened its helmet law to exclude riders over age 21 with at least $10,000 of medical insurance coverage. A study determined that Florida's motorcyclist death rate rose by about 25% after it weakened its helmet law. The death rate rose from 31 deaths per 1,000 crashes before the law change (1998-99) to 39 deaths per 1,000 crashes afterwards (2001-2002). Experts estimate that 117 deaths could have been avoided during 2001-02 if the helmet law had not been weakened.

A: This may sound funny, but helmet use laws are believed to lead to a decrease in motorcycle thefts. To avoid notice, potential thieves tend not to walk around carrying helmets. But, they risk attracting even greater attention from law enforcement in a full helmet law state by riding on a stolen bike without wearing a helmet. Between 1988 and 1990 , after Texas passed legislation requiring that everyone wear a helmet, in 19 Texas cities theft of motorcycles decreased 44 percent, according to the Texas Department of Public Safety.

Theft of motorcycles also decreased in Europe after full-wear helmet laws were enacted.In 1973 London (Great Britain), motorcycle thefts dropped 24% after enactment of a helmet law. In 1975 The Netherlands won a 36% drop in thefts when it, similarly, enacted a full helmet use law. In 1980, in what was then West Germany, a step up of helmet law enforcement efforts caused a 60% drop in motorcycle theft.

From: New York attorney Gary E. Rosenberg (personal injury and accident attorney and lawyer; serving Brooklyn Queens Bronx; Brooklyn Injury Attorney)

A: In 1967, the U.S. began requiring states to pass enact motorcycle helmet laws in order to be approved for federal transportation monies. By the end of 1969, 40 states had passed helmet use laws. By 1975, all but three states required motorcycle riders to wear helmets.

In 1976 a fight broke out between the states and the federal government. As the U.S. Department of Transportation tried to levy monetary penalties against states with helmet laws, the states were able to persuade Congress to remove the D.O.T.'s power to assess fines against any state for not passing a helmet law. Between the years 1976 and 1978, 20 states watered down their helmet use laws by making them apply to younger riders only, usually under age 18. Eight states entirely cancelled their helmet use laws.

In the 1980s and early 1990s, several states reenacted helmet laws that applied to all riders. In 1991, the federal Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act granted financial incentives to states that passed laws requiring motorcycle helmet and automobile safety belt use.

Four years after enacting these financial incentives, the U.S. Congress again reversed itself. Come 1995, it removed penalties against states without helmet use laws, once again giving a green light to states that had no helmet use laws or even those that repealed their existing helmet laws.

1997: Texas and Arkansas weakened their helmet laws to apply only to young riders.

1998: Kentucky weakened its helmet law .

1999: Louisiana weakened its helmet law but reversed itself in 2004 to require all riders to wear a helmet.

2000: Florida exempted adult motorcyclist and moped riders from wearing helmets provided they carry medical insurance of $10,000.

2003: Pennsylvania waived a helmet requirement for motorcyclists over age 21, that either have held a license for at least 2 years or have passed an approved motorcycle rider education course.

Now 20 states and the District of Columbia have full helmet laws, and 26 states have laws covering some riders, usually people younger than 18. Colorado, Illinois, Iowa, and New Hampshire do not have helmet laws.

A: Studies show that compliance is near 100% when riders are forced to wear motorcycle helmets. When the helmet law doesn't apply to the rider, only about 50% of riders not required by law to wear helmets wear them.

According to the NHTSA, in 2007, 63% of fatally injured motorcycle riders were not wearing a helmet in states not requiring all riders to wear helmets, versus only 14% in states requiring all riders to wear helmets.

FROM: New York attorney Gary E. Rosenberg (personal injury and accident attorney and lawyer; serving Brooklyn Queens Bronx; Brooklyn Injury Lawyer)

Contrasted with cars, motorcycles are a particularly dangerous form of travel. The federal government estimates that, in 2006, per mile traveled the number of deaths due to motorcycle accidents was about 35 times greater than that suffered by people in cars

Motorcyclist deaths have been rising in recent years -- more than doubling by 2007 from a record low in 1997. In 2007, more motorcycle riders died in crashes than in any year since the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) began collecting statistics about fatal crashes. In contrast, passenger vehicle occupant deaths reached a record low in 2007. Motorcycles often have excessive performance capabilities, including especially rapid acceleration and high top speeds. They are less stable than cars when emergency braking and less visible to other motorists.

Motorcyclists are more prone to injury than car occupants because motorcycles are unenclosed, leaving riders vulnerable to contact with hard road surfaces - which hurts!. This is why wearing a helmet, as well as other protective clothing, is so important. Helmets are the principal measure for reducing motorcycle accident-related head injuries, which is the leading cause of death among riders not wearing helmets.

Q: What do we call riders who don't wear helmets? A: Organ donors.

A: Helmets lessen the severity of head injury, the likelihood of death, and the extent of post-accident medical care. They are designed to soften the impact to riders' heads from a crash. Just like safety belts in cars, helmets do not provide complete protection in an accident, but they do decrease the harm suffered by motorcycle riders. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has found that wearing a helmet while on a motorcycle reduces the possibility of death from an accident by 37%. Helmets are especially good at preventing brain injury, which can often require long-term treatment and may result in a permanent disability. While crash studies have not evaluated the effectiveness of novelty or "salad bowl" helmets - which are not certified as meeting U.S. Department of Transportation standards - anecdotal evidence suggests that head injuries are much more likely with these helmets than with those carrying D.O.T. certification.

A: Some riders claim that wearing a helmet makes the wearer's head heavier, so that there is an increased chance of neck injury and reduced peripheral vision and ability to hear. There is no scientific support to such arguments, and a scientific study conducted in 1994 found that "helmets reduce head injuries without an increased occurrence of spinal injuries in motorcycle trauma."

Studies also prove that full-coverage helmets only slightly limit horizontal peripheral vision.

To compensate for any limits in side-to-side (lateral) vision, riders tend to increase their head rotation prior to a lane change. Hearing appears unaffected by helmets because motorcycles tend to have "loud pipes," so that noises loud enough to be heard over the sound of the engine usually can be heard while wearing a helmet.

From: New York attorney Gary E. Rosenberg (personal injury and accident attorney and lawyer; serving Brooklyn Queens Bronx; Brooklyn Injury Attorney)

One of the best ways to avoid serious injury after a motorcycle accident is for the rider to follow motorcycle safety laws. Keep safe and keep legal by reviewing New York's motorcycle and helmet laws, which cover helmet use, handlebar height, helmet speakers, eye protection, lane splitting, and lane sharing. Take heed Dear Readers, and take note of study the following rules.

(Rules may vary for off-road motorcycles.)

From: New York attorney Gary E. Rosenberg (personal injury and accident attorney and lawyer; serving Brooklyn Queens Bronx; Bronx Accident Lawyer)

Lose your wallet and you cancel your credit cards. Do you give any thought to your health insurance card? A thief or finder of your health insurance card can steal far more than with a misappropriated credit card.

What's the hurt? Credit cards are well protected. Signature required. Magnetic strips. Special codes. Maybe even the card user's photograph.

Health insurance cards tend to be simple pieces of plastic with the benefits holder's name and account number and, usually, lots of "800" numbers to call for claim information. Yet there exists something like a $70 billion problem that costs insurers for fraud. An expense that can only be passed down to you, the person whose money and/or labor pays the health care insurance premium.

There are different kinds of fraud at work.

In certain large cities, organized rings of thieves will steal medical identities and create phantom medical care providers. This phony provider or clinic will bill health care insurers such as Medicaid or Medicare aggressively for as long as they can get away with it. When caught or discovered they drain the money out of their business accounts and disappear. This leaves the person with the stolen identity in a bind. He or she may owe money for medical services not received. Also they have a falsified personal medical record, which impacts their ability to get future insurance or even a job.

Another manner of health care identity theft is where a person assumes your identity to get medical care. Frequently this would be for something expensive like surgery or dental care. Unscrupulous family members might even share a health care insurance card among themselves -- one brothr or sister helping another. Which is why smart medical providers ask to see their patient's driver's license or other proof of identity in addition to a health insurance card.

As with your credit card statement, carefully look over your health insurance Explanation of Benefit forms that shuold be mailed to you. Make sure the services listed were actually provided to you.

Finally, check your credit reports regularly, to see if collection efforts or judgments are recorded against you for fraudulent bills to your health insurance (for treatment not rendered to you), which are unpaid.  Besides not condoning the rip-off of medical insurance carriers -- which can bite us all on the butt when premiums increase -- you wish to avoid injury to your own credit.

From: New York attorney Gary E. Rosenberg (personal injury and accident attorney and lawyer; serving Brooklyn Queens Bronx; Brooklyn Accident Attorney)

Dear Readers, I'm going to show you something that I hope you never see again, except in this blawg. You see, I got me a ticket for running a red light. And I got my picture took. Or, more accurately, my car got its picture took.

Now, no one was injured or hurt. I had no accident. No lives were damaged or lost. I just got caught. Busted. No points have been added on to my license, like might happen if I was convicted of a moving violation; but I have paid a $50 fine. Because I think it's interesting, I want to share with you part of the enclosure that New York City sent to me with its Notice of Liability.

Here's what the City of New York sends:

Red Light Fact Sheet

"Legislation has been enacted to allow the City of New York to issue Notices Of Liability for red light violations based on images taken by an automated camera. The red light cameras are installed to deter motorists from committing red light violations. The enforcement of these violations has been given to the Department of Transportation.

The enclosed images were taken automatically by such a camera. The Red Light Camera is connected to a traffic light and is only active when the light is red, not when the light is green or yellow.

Vehicles crossing the stop line or entering the crosswalk after the light turns red are detected automatically. The camera takes two photographs, approximately one second apart. The images show the date and exact time of the violation as well as the number of seconds since the light had turned red. (Refer to Data Field explanation, below). A flash unit allows the camera-to operate at night as well as in daylight.

When a red light offense is photographed, the registrant is mailed a Notice of Liability along with one or more images showing the violation. The registrant is liable for a fine, currently of $50.00, but will not receive points on his or her driver's license.

Under the law, the registrant can be held liable even if he or she was not the driver if the car was photographed going through the red light.

The enclosed Notice of Liability describes the procedures for paying the fine or pleading not guilty and requesting a hearing. Please read all of the information carefully."

Then, on the page where the photos of my car are shown:

"Please take notice as the Registrant of the vehicle described below which was operated in violation of section 1111 (d) of the Vehicle and Traffic Law at the place, date and time below: because the driver did not stop for the red light at the stop line, or before entering the crosswalk, you are liable to pay a fine within 30 days of the date of this notice (NOL) for the amount shown herein pursuant to section 1111-a of the VTL, section 19-210 of the NYC Administrative Code and the Rules of the NYC Department of Finance. One or more photographs evidencing the violation are shown. Please see the reverse for further instructions."

The photographs of my car came out pretty good, so there is really no defense to these pictures. Particularly since New York's automobile license plates reflect light, so when photographed with a flash, your license plate practically stands up and waves hello to the camera.

Now in the interest of serving my version of the public good, I should tell you that there are websites that provide the locations of these red light cameras. If you're so inclined, check out http://www.photoenforced.com or http://wikidriving.com (look for: "Red Light Camera Locations"). Please remember to drive safely and with or without red light cameras, it's not a good idea to "eat" a red light.

From: New York attorney Gary E. Rosenberg (personal injury and accident attorney and lawyer; serving Brooklyn Queens Bronx; Bronx Injury Attorney)

I just blogged about Leandra's law on December 30, 2009. This new law gives longer jail sentences to drunk drivers with children in their car, and requires notification of Child Protective Services if the driver is a parent or guardian of one of the children.

Johnny Ovalles, age 38, of Brooklyn, is accused of weaving in and out of traffic and motoring way over the speed limit on Queens County, New York's Grand Central Parkway at 6:30 AM on New Year's Day. Police grabbed him, and one can only surmise that a sigh of relief passed through the lips of his passengers - his wife and daughters, age 12 and age 16.

Ovalles' eyes were bloodshot and he smelled of alcohol. According to authorities he admitted to drinking, and blew almost double the legal limit on his Breathalyzer test.

Ovalles faces serious felony time - up to four years in prison - under Leandra's Law. Fortunately, he didn't hurt or injure anyone or cause an accident. Why his wife got into the car with her daughters we may never know. A big thank you to the cops that pulled Ovalles over before he caused an accident or hurt anyone, whoever you are.

From: New York attorney Gary E. Rosenberg (personal injury and accident attorney and lawyer; serving Brooklyn Queens Bronx; Brooklyn Injury Attorney)

Tuesday, January 5, 2010 was simply a bad, crappy day in New York City. There are no better words to describe a day in which several people died in various of New York City's neighborhoods.

FIRST: A wanna-be model, Ms. Gypsy Porfirio, age 34, of Brooklyn mowed down a couple jogging on Hyland Boulevard in Staten Island at about 4:40 PM. Ms. Porfirio was allegedly high on a combination of prescription pills and told authorities, "I blacked out at the wheel." Seriously injured were Daniel Kelley, age 23, and Gina Siclari, age 18, both of Staten Island. Mr. Kelley was in extremely critical condition from head trauma and other injuries; he is not expected to live. Ms. Siclari suffered a fractured or broken ankle, and assorted soft tissue injuries. Ms. Porfirio faces a host of criminal charges. Her bail has been set at $150,000.

SECOND: In Manhattan, a bicycle rider died instantly when she hit a pothole on Delancey Street at Ludlow Street, and fell into the path of a school bus. This occurred at around 4:15 PM, near the Williamsburg Bridge. Her name has not been released yet, but no criminal charges are expected. Local activists are blaming, in part, the broken condition of the pavement in and around Delancey Street.

THIRD: At around 7:30 AM, Brooklyn resident Rosemary Platt, age 46, was struck by a forklift in the Midwood neighborhood of Brooklyn and died 30 minutes later in a local hospital. The vehicle was ferrying materials for a New York City Transit Authority subway repair project.

FOURTH: Shortly before 12 noon in Crown Heights, in Brooklyn, Ms. Mary Mason, age 59 - who is reported as being homeless - was hit and killed by an oil delivery truck as she crossed Pacific Street. She was pushing a shopping cart full of bottles and cans to recycle, which may have gotten caught in the truck.

From: New York attorney Gary E. Rosenberg (personal injury and accident attorney and lawyer; serving Brooklyn Queens Bronx; Bronx Accident Lawyer)

Dear Readers: This one is guaranteed to scare you at least a little. We buy things for our children in stores and assume that the products we purchase won't hurt our families. But sometimes, no matter how careful we are, we can be wrong. A dangerous product can lead to injury or, even, death. This is why we have a U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, and product recalls.

The headline for this recall reads: "Children's Hooded Sweatshirts with Drawstrings Recalled by Jason Evans Associates Due to Strangulation Hazard; Sold Exclusively at Burlington Coat Factory."

The recall is of Boys Fleece & Flannel Zip Hooded Sweatshirts with Drawstrings, sold under the brand name "Bay Trading." Approximately !8,000 pieces were sold by Burlington Coat Factory from 2006 through 2009, priced around $16.00.

Manufactured in Pakistan, the hooded zip sweatshirts have a drawstring through the hood which can pose a strangulation hazard to children. Thankfully, no accidents or injuries have been reported.

From: New York attorney Gary E. Rosenberg (personal injury and accident attorney and lawyer; serving Brooklyn Queens Bronx; Queens injury lawyer).

There are millions of injuries and thousands of deaths annually due to motor vehicles: car, truck, bus and motorcycle accidents. If you're a careful motorist you can probably figure out the leading "human factor" cause by yourself - driver inattention. According to New York State statistics, this is followed by failure to yield the right of way, and then by following too closely.

Driver distractions take many forms: cell phones, eating while at the wheel, fiddling with the stereo or portable music player, operating a navigation or global positioning system, using a hand-held device or computer, and even reading or putting on make-up while driving. Likewise conversations with passengers in the vehicle can take a driver's mind off the road.

Do you know the day of the week on which most accidents occur? According to 2008 New York State Department of Motor Vehicle Statistics, it is on Friday. And most accidents occur between 3:00 P.M. and 6:00 P.M.

Cell phone use is probably the worst distraction. However, studies show that even the use of hands free headsets do not lower the risk of having an accident - especially since many drivers take their eyes off the road to dial their phones.

Drinking and driving: Believe it or not, many drivers still get behind the wheel of their car truck or motorcycle after having a few drinks. Statistics show that alcohol is involved in a large percentage of fatalities resulting from motor vehicle accidents. Even just a few drinks can kill - many vehicle-related deaths involve a low blood-alcohol level, even below the legal limit. And that's not even considering the many people hurt or injured as result of such accidents. If you must drink, have a "designated driver." If you can take the car keys away from a friend who has been drinking, you may save his or her life, as well as the life of others.

Driving too fast: Driving over the speed limit or driving too fast given road conditions (such as in wet weather) is a contributing factor to many accidents. To paraphrase an old song, when it comes to operating a motor vehicle teach your children not to speed, and help prevent accidents and injuries.

Driving tired: Research has discovered that sleepy drivers are four times as likely to be involved in an accident or a near-crash; a much higher rate than experts previously believed.

Inexperienced drivers: In 2006, 3,406 drivers between the ages of 16 and 20 were killed, with young males accounting for 73% of these fatalities. Experts recommend that new drivers operate large cars, which offer better protection in event of a collision. However, researchers have found that teenagers like to faster or modified vehicles, which raises their chances of being injured or killed in an accident. Parental involvement is also important in keeping young drivers safe - research shows that new drivers whose parents teach them strict driving rules are less likely to violate traffic laws or have an accident. Restricting young drivers from operating vehicles after dark - when limited visibility makes driving difficult for the inexperienced - is particularly important. Finally, the dangers highlighted above present particular hazards to the inexperienced motorist: cell phone use; drinking and driving; driving too fast; and, driving tired.

Motorcycle Accidents: Motorcycle deaths have been increasing every year. Experts believe bigger, faster racing bikes available today - along with inexperienced riders - are part of the reason. Registrations for high-performance "super bikes," some of which can be purchased with high performance engines, are on the rise - as are accident and injury rates. About two dozen "super bike" deaths are anticipated for every 10,000 such motorcycles registered. Deaths of older riders are also on the rise - the death rate for motorcyclists over the age of 40 has increased in the last ten years. Experts believe this has a lot to do with the inexperience of new older riders, coupled with slower reflexes and reaction time. Also, even thought New York State law requires that a (Federal) Department of Transportation-certified helmet be worn, many motorcycle riders are hurt in accident each year while not wearing helmets. Those little plastic "salad bowl" helmets don't count; and don't even think of sticking a fake "D.O.T. approved" sticker on an uncertified helmet.

Seatbelt Use: Buckle up!  I shouldn't have to remind you of this, Dear Reader. More than half the passengers killed in motor vehicles are not wearing seatbelts at the time of the accident. Put simply, buckling your seatbelt and insisting that your passengers also buckle theirs saves lives.

From: New York attorney Gary E. Rosenberg (personal injury and accident attorney and lawyer; serving Brooklyn Queens Bronx; Queens injury attorney)

Q: Do I need to hire an attorney if I've been injured in a motor vehicle accident?

A: Not necessarily. Many people have small "fender-benders" where there car may not show any damage or just show a tiny dent or ding, and walk away unhurt. Some people are injured and the injury stops hurting within a few weeks or so without medical care.

However, some accident victims are involved in what seems to be low impact collision, and can suffer subtle but permanent traumatic brain injury, or other serious injuries. There is no guarantee that just because a person is in a large car or a heavy truck, or because the vehicles involved were driving slowly, that a victim will walk away from a crash without being hurt. As a rule of thumb, if you were involved in a minor accident, and suffered minimal pain or injuries, you could try to handle the claim yourself. For helpful FREE information I refer you to my FREE book, Warning! Things that Can Destroy Your NY Car Accident Case (And the Insurance Companies Already Know These Things).

Just know that there are many traps for the person that represent him or herself. Accidents are not all treated the same. It makes a difference if you're hurt in an accident with a car or a bus or a truck or a motorcycle. There are deadlines to file certain papers with different insurance companies. And if you're injured due to the negligence of a municipality (a State, County, City, Village, Town or even the Federal Government, etc.) there may be deadlines that apply to filing claim forms. Where your injuries are more serious, or where your bills are piling up, you almost certainly want to seek of an attorney with personal injury and accident experience.

For obviously serious injury, the difficulties of dealing with insurance and medical issues make it imperative that you hire an attorney. Studies conducted by insurance companies show that accident victims who represent themselves recover less money than those that hire qualified personal injury attorneys, even after factoring in the fee charged by the attorney. If you're hurt in an accident, the odds are very small that you will get a fair settlement offer from an insurance company if you don't hire a lawyer.

And remember, you should always notify your own insurance company if you're involved in a motor vehicle accident.

From: New York attorney Gary E. Rosenberg (personal injury and accident attorney and lawyer; serving Brooklyn Queens Bronx; Brooklyn Accident Lawyer)

When I first saw this I thought, "How do you make dangerous boots? Where's the risk of accident or injury?" Then I read further and saw, "lead paint." The headline reads:

"Timberland Recalls Children's Boots Due to Violation of Lead Paint Standard"

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission announced a voluntary recall of these boots. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately.

Apparently, 21,000 boots imported by Timberland from Thailand have lead paint on the insole, violating federal lead paint rules. I'm guessing this paint was used for printing of the logo inside the boot. Please note Dear Readers, these are CHILDREN'S boots and children are particularly sensitive to the effects of lead and lead poisoning. Avoid a lead paint accident that could injure or hurt your child.

The recalled boots are beige and sold in toddler size 4 through junior size 7. They were sold across the U.S. and New York in 2009 for around $60.00.

For additional information, contact Timberland at (800) 445-5545 or visit its Web site at www.Timberland.com.

Comment:Is it possible to get lead poisoning from a shoe? Maybe if the child is barefoot? But this seems an odd way for an accident to occur; a strange way for a child to suffer hurt or injury. The point is, I guess, that with children's health we take no chances.