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

Ice falling from the 32^nd floor of New York's 37-floor Sony Building, located at 550 Madison Avenue in Manhattan, struck and shattered two 3' x 5' glass panels at around midnight on Saturday February 27, 2010.

At the time, in progress was a party celebrating the Jewish holiday of Purim.

Some fifteen partygoers were injured; some of those hurt were taken to New York-Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell Medical Center and Roosevelt Hospital..

The owners of the building were cited by The New York City Buildings Department for failing to properly maintain the building. The Buildings Department had issued an advisory to the building owners in New York City on Friday to remind them to properly clear away snow or ice that might fall off after the snowstorm.

Comment: The building's owners could be fined up to $25,000. And of course we expect those injured to bring lawsuits. Three are always lawsuits by those hurt in accidents such as this.

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

Giving birth is an extremely traumatic event for both the mother and the infant, even when everything goes perfectly according to plan. Complications are much rarer now than in days when medical procedures were less refined and advanced. However, birth injury is still not unheard of today. There are many causes that can lead to birth injury, one of which is simply a twist or compression in the umbilical cord, which causes a deprivation of oxygen to the child as it enters a world filled with air. This is an incident that can occur before the baby has even left the womb, meaning it is completely out of the doctor's control. Other reasons, such as an improper use of tools, misread of fetal strips or other negligent acts of medical malpractice are enough to, perhaps, cause you to consider contacting a local personal injury or medical malpractice attorney if you live in New York.

Being the mother of a child that is born hurt due to a medical accident is devastating. Caring for an infant that has suffered a birth injury can be both difficult and expensive. Speaking with a lawyer who specializes in birth injury law is your best bet for receiving top-quality service for your money. Whether you reside in the Bronx, Brooklyn or Queens, inside or outside of New York City, a local personal injury attorney will be the right kind of lawyer - one with experience working on birth injury cases.

Locating a lawyer who works with these kinds of accidents and injuries can make the difference between affording proper care for your family and being required to somehow foot the bill yourself or through Public Assistance. The quality of life your infant can enjoy by receiving care quickly can be made possible when you receive proper compensation from those at fault. From an experienced attorney who works with a long-standing legal office, you can benefit from strong legal representation regarding your child's injury.

Birth injury is a serious matter that affects thousands of new mothers in the New York area. If your baby has been hurt due to malpractice or other medical accidents, neglect or carelessness, now is the time to act and increase the chances that your infant will make a financial recovery without you losing your life savings. Simply speaking to a lawyer who is employed by a renowned medical malpractice-birth injury legal office will not cost you anything, and obtaining a free consultation is the first step to getting you the compensation you deserve. Visit www.moneyforpain.com to learn more and to receive your free, initial consultation.

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

First Dept.

Admitted to Bar: 2001

Discipline imposed: Attorney resigned from (quit) the bar, giving up his law license; his resignation accepted by the Court on 2/18/2010 nunc pro tunc (retroactive) to 11/30/2009.

This naughty lawyer case starts with juicy press coverage and an FBI press release on October 15, 2009.

FBI "Operation Bad Deeds" charged 41 defendants in New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and North Carolina - including six lawyers, three mortgage brokers, and seven loan officers - with fraudulently obtaining $64 million in home mortgages on more than 100 properties in eight separate cases.

Attorney Roy was only named in one of the cases: United States v. Danny Siony, et al. In Siony, four defendants were charged in a twelve-count indictment involving over $6.8 million in allegedly fraudulent home mortgage loans obtained through a mortgage brokerage firm called Joshua Funding Corp.

Lawyer Roy and others allegedly recruited "straw" (fake) buyers for properties won at foreclosure and other types of auctions. Home mortgage loans were obtained by submitting falsified documents and earnings statements, and phony title reports and contracts of sale.

The criminal defendants told their lenders that a company controlled by one of the defendants. named Australian Open. was selling the properties to the straw buyers (at inflated prices), when Australian Open did not hold title to the properties at that time and, in most instances, never held title to the properties at all.

Once the defendants had obtained home mortgage loans for the straw buyers based on the inflated price, the loan proceeds were used to pay off the auction price, the properties transferred to the straw buyers, and the rest of the money split among the defendants.

Attorney Roy was paid to represent some of the straw buyers at New York real estate closings and obtained a power of attorney for at least one of the straw buyers he recruited to the scheme and signed documents on the straw buyer's behalf.

Layer Roy resigned his law license before he could be disbarred. The Appellate Division (higher court) noted:

In June 2009, the Departmental Disciplinary Committee charged respondent with 38 charges, covering six matters, including two unrelated real estate transactions in which he represented the seller. In the first real estate matter, respondent inflated the sale price to obtain a higher mortgage and pocketed the excess. In the second, he allegedly converted client escrow funds.

After his arrest, lawyer Roy tried to stop the attorney disciplinary process until the Federal prosecution against him ended, but he was denied.

After a disciplinary hearing on November 10, 2009, rather than face the lawyer disciplinary authorities, attorney Roy resigned.

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

On June 16, 2009, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) warned consumers to stop using and to discard three zinc-containing Zicam nose sprays. The products may cause a loss of sense of smell.

This warning does not involve oral zinc tablets and lozenges taken by mouth. Dietary zinc is also not subject to this warning. Zinc is an important trace mineral that is an essential part of the human diet. Among other things, Zinc is needed for a healthy immune system (the body's defense), and is critical for normal growth. Zinc primarily comes from food. The best way to get the daily requirement of essential vitamins and minerals is to eat a balanced diet that contains a variety of foods.

The FDA took action because it received more than 130 reports of anosmia--the loss of sense of smell--associated with use of Zicam products.

Many people who experienced a loss of sense of smell say that the condition occurred with the first dose, although some people have reported loss of sense of smell after later doses. FDA is concerned that the loss of sense of smell may be permanent.

A New York City man is suing Mattrix Initiatives, the maker of Zicam Cold Remedy Nasal Spray in New York City Federal Court for $75 million. The products liability case claims that Zicam is a negligently designed product, and that it took away his senses of smell and taste.

Plaintiff Paul Buck Jr. said he used the over-the-counter zinc-filled spray from 2006 to 2009, and now suffers from "anosmia" - a loss of taste and smell, according to his Manhattan lawsuit.

The litigation claims that Buck worked for a food vendor at New York City's Metropolitan Museum of Art; as such, he his senses of taste and smell for his job.

The lawsuit alleges that the defendant described the spray as "doctor recommended," "safe and effective" and a "patented homeopathic" remedy, all terms designed to "lull consumers.

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

First Dept.

Admitted to Bar: 1973

Discipline imposed: Automatic disbarment because of criminal conviction of a felony.

On February 18, 2010 The First Department issued its ruling.

On October 8, 2009, following a jury trial in Supreme Court, New York County, attorney Morrissey was found guilty of scheme to defraud in the first degree, conspiracy in the fourth degree, and forgery in the second degree, all felonies, as well as conspiracy in the fifth degree, a class A misdemeanor. On December 21, 2009, he was sentenced to a cumulative term of imprisonment of 1 to 3 years.

Lawyer Morrissey's conviction arose out of his participation in a scheme to defraud Brooke Astor. Morrissey, with the assistance of Brooke Astor's son, Anthony Marshall, looted Ms. Astor's estate (after Brooke Astor died) from 2001 to 2007, after she slipped into senility. Attorney Morrissey forged a codicil (addition) to Ms. Astor's will, giving Mr. Marshall over some $60 million. Astor died in 2007 at age 105.

Lawyer Morrissey's attorney asked the Disciplinary authorities to hold off acting against his law license until his expected appeal of his criminal conviction is decided.

The First Department noted that conviction of a felony under New York law results in automatic disbarment and denied lawyer Morrissey's request for delay. Morrissey was disbarred retroactive to the date of his criminal conviction, October 8, 2009.

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

Thomas Hartmann, age 41, worked construction. He also had issues with is ex-wife. He made harassing phone calls to her in violation of an order of protection, and threatened police on the night of March 11, 2004.

Police had been searching for Hartmann, who allegedly had a history of threatening his ex-wife, because he had called her home repeatedly on Thursday saying he would harm her, her family and police officers.

Police officers found Hartmann Friday as he exited a Lexus on Sunnybrook Drive East in Oceanside, police said. He reached into his pants, leading the officers to believe he had a weapon, then got back in the car and drove off, police said.

The officers followed him for a mile to Allen Avenue, where he got out. He threatened the officers and, at one point, he crouched down as if reaching for something. As he came up, one cop drove their patrol car into him at about 5 miles an hour, the right tire rolling over his legs.  While possibly reckless, still an accident.

On February 19, 2010 a jury awarded Hartmann $6 million for pain and suffering, $2.1 million for medical expenses and $8.5 million for lost wages.

Comment: The jury verdict is not the final word. The trial judge can reduce the amount of the jury verdict, as can an appeals court can reduce (on appeal).

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

On Saturday February 20, 2010, fire swept through the Bronxdale Houses, on Watson Avenue in the Bronx, New York City. The fast-moving blaze started in an apartment's living room just after 7:00 PM.

The fire, which appeared to be an accident, was confined to one apartment and extinguished within thirty minutes.

Two people were injured. A 60 year-old man was found in the apartment suffering from severe and extensive burns.

A 39 year-old woman broke or fractured both of her legs after she fell from a window while trying to escape the flames. Witnesses say that she grabbed on to an air conditioner but lost her grip, falling five stories to the ground.

Both injured persons are in critical condition at Jacobi Hospital, in the Bronx, New York City.

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

Erinn Phelan, age 22, and her former college roommate, Alma Guerrero, age 23, were
struck by a hit-and-run driver in Brooklyn on Sunday, February 21, 2010 at around 4:30 AM.

A green Acura Legend took off and left the two women laying in the roadway. The damaged Acura was found by police abandoned near Brooklyn's Atlantic Avenue Terminal. The driver - described as a female whose description fit that of the vehicle's owner - had fled, possibly by train.

The young women were taken to Brooklyn's Kings County Hospital, where Phelan was declared brain dead from her injuries. Guerrero was in stable condition at Kings County Hospital Sunday. Family and friends gathered of both young women assembled in the hospital.

Phelan was hired last year by Mayor Bloomberg's administration to help run New York City's new Civic Corps. Modeled on the Peace Corps, it sends young people to local organizations to help them encourage volunteerism.

Police Investigators were checking the Acura for fingerprints and searching area surveillance camera video for an image of the driver.

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

I've previously blawged: "If You Live in New York, Register and Insure Your Car in New York- Duuuhhhhh." Car owners trying to save money by registering and insuring their cars in states where they do not actually reside run a terrible risk. In the event of an accident, the owner's insurance company may refuse to pay for damages or injury from the accident because it considers the insurance as obtained through fraud. The car owner may face complete denial of insurance coverage, even in the face of claims from people seriously hurt.

If you want to register and insure your car outside of New York, please really live at the address you use. And vote there. And pay taxes and utility bills and rent or a mortgage there. We turn now to a case I want to bring to your attention, which deals with the nuances of New York State's No-Fault insurance law.

Decided on July 22, 2009 by New York State's Supreme Court, Appellate Term, New York (First Department) is: AA Acupuncture Service, P.C. v. Safeco Insurance Company of America.

The plaintiff, AA Acupuncture Service, and several other health care providers treated a patient for injuries suffered in a car accident. The injured person gave her medical caretakers "assignments" which allowed them to directly bill the No-Fault automobile insurance carrier, Safeco Insurance, for the patient's care. Also, by taking the assignment(s) the health care provider(s) "stand in the shoes" of the patient, so that in addition to billing for their services, they can sue a non-paying insurance company on behalf of the patient. Which is what happened in this case.

The facts are straightforward, and the majority opinion simple, short and sweet. The accident victim gave a phony Connecticut address - a commercial store in a strip mall - as the place where she lived and where her car would be kept. She actually lived in Brooklyn, in beyootiful New York City. She paid an annual car insurance premium of $1,236 based on the Connecticut address. Had she used her (correct) Brooklyn, New York address, her premium would have been $4,807.

The Court considered this as fraud, and permitted the insurance company to not pay the doctors' bills, even though they did not participate in the fraud because "they stood in their patient's shoes," and her fraud relieves Safeco Insurance of its obligation to pay any benefits under the policy of insurance that it sold.

I really want to bring to your attention the concurring (agreeing) opinion of one of the judges in the case, who had a lot to say against this kind of fraud.

'For sure, there are those, in these dire economic times, who might ask, "What's the big deal?" In the minds of many, insurance companies charge too much for too little. Perhaps there are those who simply cannot afford to insure a vehicle in New York, yet need a car for work or personal necessity. True, theirs is a choice not motivated by ill gain, but by economic considerations. Whatever the reason, the reality remains that the spiraling cost of automobile insurance premiums in New York is directly linked to ever increasing instances of insurance fraud.

*       *       *

Thus, the New Yorker deceitfully claiming to be a Pennsylvanian for purposes of registering a car might pay less, but the rest of us pay more. Soon, New Yorkers will pay higher fees to register their vehicles. Those of our neighbors who do so elsewhere will escape that cost and our State will be shortchanged much-needed revenue.

However, the sad truth is that this insidious brand of fraud produces consequences beyond higher fees and insurance premiums. What about the innocent family involved in an accident with one of these out-of-state registrants? Are they assured of a financially responsible source of compensation for physical injury or the death of a loved one, or must they deal with a "fly by night" local insurer, little regulated and beyond the jurisdictional reach of New York courts? What about the disclaimer jurisprudence in these foreign states? Will the innocent victim of the tortious wrong of a fraudulent out-of-state registrant still have the benefit of insurance once the fraud is discovered? The questions are myriad and the potential for harm to New Yorkers is real and significant.'

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

Several recalls made almost on the same day. All recalls are for sweatshirts for kids that can cause accidental strangulation - a nasty accident; a nasty injury.

FIRST: Bobens Trading Co. Inc., of Hicksville, New York recalled Girl's Hooded Sweatshirts with Drawstrings, which were manufactured in China. It sold about 3900 pieces.

This recall involves "Old Skool" girls' hoodie sweatshirts with long and short sleeves in sizes S - XL and in a variety of colors and designs. The neck seam label reads "Old Skool" and includes the garment size. The hooded zip sweatshirts have a drawstring through the hood which poses a risk of accidental strangulation to children.

Sold at: Burlington Coat Factory stores nationwide from November 2007 to September 2009 from about $8.00 to $20.00

Remedy: Consumers should immediately remove the drawstrings from the sweatshirts to prevent an accident or return the garment to either the place of purchase, or to Bobens Trading Co. Inc., for a full refund.

SECOND: Weeplay Kids LLC, of New York City, New York, recalled Girls' Hooded Sweatshirts, which were manufactured in China and Pakistan. It sold about 11,800 pieces.

The recall involves girl's sweatshirts sold under the Candy Queen and Akademiks brand names.

Sold at: Small retail stores nationwide from February 2008 through November 2008 for between $5 and $22.

Remedy: Consumers should immediately remove the drawstrings to prevent accidental injury. Consumers can return the garment to Weeplay Kids or the place of purchase for a full refund.

THIRD: Franshaw Inc., of New York City, N.Y., recalled Children's Hooded Jackets, which were manufactured in China. It sold about 2400 pieces.

This recall involves Blue Heart and Just a Girl brand children's sweatshirts. The sweatshirts were sold in sizes 4 to 6X.

Sold exclusively at: Burlington Coat Factory stores nationwide from September 2006 through September 2009 for about $10.

Remedy: Consumers should immediately remove the drawstrings from the jackets to keep children from getting hurt in an accident or return the garment to Burlington Coat Factory or to Franshaw Inc. for a full refund.

FOURTH: Baycreek Inc., of New York City, NY, recalled Attitude Gold children's hooded sweatshirts in sizes small, medium, large and extra large. The sweatshirts were sold in beige, blue, charcoal gray and black and have a random distress designs. Manufactured in China, it sold about 1900 pieces.

Hazard: The sweatshirts have a drawstring through the hood which can pose a strangulation hazard to children.

Sold at: Burlington Coat Factory and Modecraft Fashions stores nationwide from October 2008 through June 2009 for about $25.

Remedy: Consumers should immediately remove the drawstrings from the sweatshirts to prevent an accident or return the garment to either the place of purchase or to Baycreek for a full refund.

Comment:  In February 1996, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) issued guidelines to help prevent children from strangling or getting tangled on the drawstrings of jackets and sweatshirts. Drawstrings on children's clothing present a hidden hazard that can lead to injury and death when they catch on such items as playground slides, bus doors, or cribs. From January 1985 through January 1999, CPSC received reports of twenty-two deaths and forty-eight non-fatal incidents involving the entanglement of children's clothing drawstrings.

To prevent accidental strangulation, CPSC recommends that children's coats, jackets and sweatshirts have non-drawstring closures: such as snaps, buttons, Velcro, and elastic.

CPSC also recommends that the hood and neck drawstrings be removed from all children's coats, jackets and sweatshirts. Even just shortening a neck drawstring can still leave it dangerous, it's best to just remove it.

The ends of waist/bottom drawstrings of children's coats, jackets and sweatshirts should measure no more than three inches from where the strings extend out of the garment when it is expanded to its fullest width. Also, the drawstring should be sewn into the garment at its midpoint so the string can not be pulled to one side, making it long enough to catch on something. CPSC also recommends eliminating toggles or knots at the ends of all drawstrings. Shortening the length of drawstrings and removing togges and knots reduces the risk that the strings will become entangled in objects such as school bus doors or other moving objects, which would present a risk of serious accidental injury.

We've known for more than ten years that drawstrings on children's hoods and the waist area of jackets are a bad idea. So why do retailers keep selling them?

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

Why, oh why, are products still being sold in New York and the U.S.A. that use lead-based paint?

The latest product recall is for: Allreds Design Baby Bracelets and Pacifier Clips.

About 900 of these were manufactured in the United States and distributed by Allreds Design (doing business as Hidden Hollow Beads), of Fort Duchesne, Utah. They were sold in 2008 for about $5.00.

The recalled bracelets and pacifier clip clasps contain high levels of lead. Lead is toxic if ingested by young children and may lead to accidental lead poisoning, which can damage and hurt childrens' health.

Allreds Design reports a 10-month-old infant who was treated for accidental lead poisoning.

The recall includes Allreds Design-brand baby bracelets and pacifier clips. The bracelets are sold in sizes 0-6 months, 1-4 years, and 4-8 years of age. The baby bracelets and pacifier clips have crystal and plastic beads in various colors with a metal clasp.

If you have this product in your home, please throw it away.

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

Wednesday, February 17, 200 at around 8:00 AM, four-year-old Amron Altman was waiting for his school bus on 13^th Avenue at 49th Street in front of his home in Borough Park, Brooklyn. He slipped on ice and was sucked under the rear wheel of a passing bus. He died from his injuries.

The driver of the bus that caused his death did not know that he had struck the child. When he was alerted as to what occurred, he returned to the accident scene. The bus driver passed an alcohol test. No criminal charges are expected arising out of this tragic accident.

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

Some general background. Attorneys can have different kinds of bank accounts. Their law firm bank account for business and lawsuit expenses and stuff; their personal account to accept deposit of their pay checks and pay personal bills and living expenses; and an escrow or "IOLA" bank account. An escrow account is a special creature-it is not the attorney's money and usually not entirely the client's money. The funds in an attorney escrow account belong to everyone and to no one at the same time. This bank account can only be accessed when the money is paid out or distributed according to contract or agreement or court order.

Escrow accounts are ferociously protected by the courts, because they always contain at least some (if not all) attorney's client money. The easiest way for an attorney to get into trouble is to mess with his or her escrow account, say "borrowing" money from it like a personal piggy bank. Or using the money to pay off losing investments, or for gambling debts, or to buy drugs, etc. The courts do not tolerate this. And there can never be an excuse by the attorney controlling the account that the money disappeared by accident, because cash withdrawals or escrow checks paid to "cash" aren't allowed.

Now we turn to lawyer Mark Kressner.

First admitted to the practice of law in 1976, attorney Kressner got into trouble in 1985. A corrupt son-of-a-gun, Kressner and his then law partner paid off an attorney who worked for a charitable organization to give them information about clients of the charity hurt in accidents or injured by medical malpractice. The purpose was to allow attorney Kressner's firm to improperly solicit potential clients who had been injured in accidents or had potential medical malpractice claims against the organization's hospitals and facilities. This decision, reported at 111 A.D.2d 730 and 108 A.D.2d 334, does not give the name of the charity.

Kressner and partner plead guilty to a misdemeanor - soliciting business on behalf of an attorney, a violation of New York State's Judiciary Law. Noting that lawyer Kressner and his partner "[p]aid another attorney to act in breach of his duty to his employer," the Court gave Kressner a three-year suspension of his law license. For reasons unknown, lawyer Kressner waited an extra five years until he requested and got his law license reinstated. He was allowed to practice law again commencing on September 23, 1993.

Apparently he didn't learn his lesson. In this case (the subject of this blawg), the lawyers' Departmental Disciplinary Committee went to the Appellate Division and requested an immediate suspension of attorney Kressner from the paractice of law because it felt that "[h]e has committed acts of professional misconduct posing an immediate threat to the public interest."

Now it gets even more interesting, Dear Readers.

It seems that lawyer Kressner was using his attorney special escrow bank account to block money from being seized by the government for tax bills and other debts. This could only work because - as I said before - of the special nature of the attorney escrow bank account, that being that the money there is mostly or even all belonging to client(s) so that seizure of those funds by the authorities would punish innocent clients who might be entitled to and, in fact, need their funds for their business dealings or whathaveyou. On the other hand, the escrow account provides a neat camouflage for wrong-minded lawyers seeking to put their money out of reach of the law. As attorney Mark Kresssner did seek to keep the tax authorities from taking his money.

Kressner had gotten involved in a failed real estate venture and tax shelters, forcing him into personal bankruptcy in 1991. And he owed:

Shortly after attorney Kressner deposited a $50,000 legal fee into his business operating account in December 2007, the New York State tax authorities seized those funds plus the remaining balance in the account.

From that point forward, lawyer Kressner stopped using his operating account and personal bank accounts and only utilized his IOLA account for business and personal purposes. Kressner admitted to the attorney disciplinary authorities that he knew that the IRS and New York State tax authorities could not seize the money he deposited in his IOLA account. He further admitted that there were client funds in his IOLA account when he deposited personal funds into it, but stated he has not used any client funds.

Attorney Kressner used lending companies, such as Ardec Funding, to advance funds to himself to be used for both personal and business operating purposes in anticipation of cases being settled. Lawyer Kressner would deposit Ardec funds into his IOLA account to shield this money from the IRS and New York State tax authorities. He admitted that he did not maintain a ledger for his escrow account identifying client matters, monies deposited and disbursements as required.

Lawyer Kressner asserted that he planed on retiring or resigning from the practice of law, with no assurance that he would fulfill that promise.

The Court held: "We conclude that [Kressner's] commingling of funds in his IOLA account in order to hide his income from tax authorities, his failure to maintain adequate bookkeeping records, and his financing arrangements with lending corporations to keep his apparently insolvent law practice afloat creates a troubling situation which puts his clients' funds at risk and thus immediately threatens the public interest warranting an interim suspension."

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

Unless you decide to live in a bubble in your living room and never go anywhere or do anything, you will subject yourself daily to the possibility of getting hurt in an accident. While you cannot live in constant fear that something will happen to you, it can come as quite a shock when a mishap does occur. As a resident of New York, you are certainly not alone. As the busiest city in the United States, many accidents can occur in one form or another. It could be a motor vehicle accident leading to spinal cord injuries, product liability resulting in child lead poisoning, or medical malpractice causing birth injury to your baby. No matter the case, an injury attorney can help you get the compensation you deserve as the victim of an accident.

The stress of being injured or seeing a family member suffer an injury is enough without even considering the cost involved. Medical bills from serious accidents can add up quickly and while insurance may cover much of the immediate cost, it may not cover all of it and certainly not reoccurring hospital visits that may ensue as a result of the accident. That is where Brooklyn personal injury attorneys come in. Working closely with a qualified lawyer can empower you with the tools you need to be compensated for your pain.

Personal injury cases in New York can be filed in any N.Y.C. borough including the Bronx, Brooklyn and Queens. In every case, the person filing the claim with their attorney must not be the one entirely at fault for the accident. You can be compensated is if you were the victim of negligent or malicious behavior. A Bronx personal injury attorney can file different kinds of claims, from pain and suffering and compensatory damages to loss of consortium and punitive damages, all of which you could be entitled to. You may not receive nearly as much recompense without working closely with an injury attorney.

Practicing New York accident attorneys are familiar with the laws and filing procedures in the state. They will be able to handle all the proceedings for you, from the filing of the paperwork to presenting your case in court and arguing your right to compensation in order to cover your medical bills and pain and suffering. While the lawyer takes care of the technicalities, you can focus on returning your body back to full health and function.

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

Jose Juarez, age 16, of Sunset Park, Brooklyn, was injured in a tragic accident in a New York City subway tunnel at around 10:00 Saturday evening (February 13, 2010).

The teenager was allegedly preparing to paint graffiti in a tunnel. Thus the boy, his brother, and cousin were walking the northbound tracks of the "N" line. The accident occurred about seventy-five feet north of the King Highway station's platform.

The youths had seen a train leaving the station and were pressed into recesses along the tracks that were for use by maintenance workers. It is uncertain how Jose's leg got caught by the train.

According to an unidentified police officer, the boy was hit by a "shoe," the metal part of the train that connects it to the third, electrified rail. The officer felt Jose was lucky in only losing his leg, because he easily could have been electrocuted and his death would have been instant, and horrible.

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

On Saturday, February 13, 2010 at about 3:00 in the morning, off-duty police officer Raphael Ospina, age 27, was driving while drunk. His Chrysler 300 clipped a garbage truck, jumped the curb, struck a tree and a garbage can, flipped over and smacked into the front of the New York's famous Tiffany store on Fifth Avenue.

Ospina, a resident of Fresh Meadows in Queens, had two passengers in the car; all were hurt in the accident. Firefighters had to cut them out of the Chrysler.

The three men were taken to Manhattan's Bellevue Hospital and treated there for injuries from the crash. One of Ospina's passengers fractured his arm, while the off-duty officer broke three ribs and suffered a head laceration. The other passenger hurt his back and will require back surgery for his injury.

The driver of the garbage truck, while shaken, was not hurt in the accident.

Ospina, who joined the N.Y.C. police department in 2004 and is assigned to the 25^th Precinct, was charged with DWI and vehicular assault. He's been suspended without pay.

Comment:  While technically an "accident," this occurrence doesn't bode well for P.O. Ospina's career in law enforcement.

From: New York attorney Gary E. Rosenberg (personal injury and accident attorney and lawyer; serving Brooklyn¹ Queens Bronx; Bronx Injury Lawyer)

Almost 800,000 Wind Chime Toys sold throughout the United States and Canada have been recalled for presenting the possibility of a dangerous accident.

Manufactured in China, and distributed by Tiny Love Inc., of New York City and the Maya Group Inc., of Huntington Beach, California, the wind chime toy can be pulled apart exposing sharp metal rods, presenting puncture, slicing, cutting and and laceration hazards to a baby.

There are reports of five babies hurt and injured when they pulled apart the wind chimes. Sharp metal rods were exposed, in one case puncturing the cheek of one child.

The wind chime carry the names Gymini Kick & Play Activity Gym and Tiny Smarts Gift Sets. They make the sound of a wind chime. "Tiny Love" is on a tag on the toy. They were sold at

TJ Maxx, Target, Walmart, Buy Buy Baby, and Toys R Us stores from 2002 through 2010 for about $8 separately, $22 for the Tiny Smarts Gift Sets and $70 with the Gymini Kick & Play Activity Gym.

Avoid an accident and injury to a precious child and take down this crib toy if you own it.

________________________________________________

^{1Serving Brooklyn neighborhoods of: Bath Beach, Bay Ridge, Bedford-Stuyvesant, Bensonhurst, Bergen Beach, Boerum Hill, Borough Park, Brighton Beach, Broadway Junction, Brooklyn Heights, Brownsville, Bushwick, Canarsie, Carroll Gardens, City Line, Clinton Hill, Cobble Hill, Coney Island, Crown Heights, Cypress Hills, Ditmas Park, Downtown Brooklyn, DUMBO, Dyker Heights, East Flatbush, East New York, Flatbush, Flatlands, Fort Greene, Fort Hamilton, Fulton Ferry, Georgetown, Gerritsen Beach, Gowanus, Gravesend, Greenpoint, Highland Park, Homecrest, Kensington, Manhattan Beach, Marine Park, Midwood, Mill Basin, New Lots, Ocean Hill, Ocean Parkway, Paerdegat Basin, Park Slope, Plum Beach, Prospect Heights, Prospect Lefferts Gardens, Prospect Park South, Red Hook, Remsen Village, Rugby, Sea Gate, Sheepshead Bay, Spring Creek, Sunset Park, Vinegar Hill, Williamsburg, Windsor Terrace and Wingate.}

From: New York attorney Gary E. Rosenberg (personal injury and accident attorney and lawyer; serving Brooklyn Queens Bronx¹; Bronx Accident Attorney)

On Friday, February 5, 2010, at about 2:00 PM, Jackson Heights resident Jozef Wilk accidentally fell to his death while working in construction on a building owned by Columbia University and located at 603 W. 129th St., in Manhattan, New York City.

Wilk was working on scaffolding outside the third floor of the building when he fell through a window and down an inside elevator shaft, sustaining a fatal injury. He was taken to St. Luke's Hospital where he was pronounced dead from his injuries.

According to a N.Y.C. Department of Buildings spokesperson, several violations were issued as a result of the accident: (1) for failing to safeguard persons and property, (2) for having an open and unguarded elevator shaft, and, (3) for improperly constructed scaffolding. No criminality is suspected.

Comment: Jozef Wilk's death appeared to be the first fatal 2010 construction accident leading to death. According to the N.Y.C. Department of Buildings fatalities at building sites dropped 84%, from nineteen in year 2008 to three in year 2009.

________________________________________________________

  ^{1Serving Bronx neighborhoods of: Baychester, Bedford Park, Belmont, Castle Hill, City Island, Clason Point, Country Club, Eastchester, Edgewater Park, Fieldston, Fordham, Hart Island, High Bridge, Hunts Point, Kings Bridge, Longwood, Melrose, Morris Park, Morrisania, Mott Haven, Mount Eden, Mount Hope, Norwood, Olinville, Parkchester, Pelham Bay, Port Morris, Rikers Island, Riverdale, Schuylerville, Soundview, Spuyten Duyvil, Throgs Neck, Unionport, University Heights, Van Nest, Wakefield, West Farms, Westchester, Westchester Square, Williamsbridge and Woodlawn.}

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

The Economist is a wonderful weekly magazine that is headquartered in England but presents a marvelous not-only-from-the-United-States perspective of world events. I've just been reading a little paperback book published by The Economist, entitled "Pocket World in Figures, 2010 Edition." I found some interesting statistics that I'd like to share.

Of the various countries, the Highest Car Ownership is in Luxembourg, where, on average, every 1000 people own 647 cars. Second comes Iceland, with 632 cars per thousand inhabitants. Nineteenth (19^th) on the list is the United States, with 461 cars per thousand Americans. Lowest Car Ownership is a six-way tie with one car owned per 1000 people in Bangladesh, Burundi, Central African Republic, Ethiopia, Rawanda, and Tanzania. Not surprisingly, some pretty economically poor countries on this list.

So is there a link between number of cars owned and car accidents, people hurt or injured, motor vehicle deaths, etc.?

The Arabian nation of Qatar has the highest number of people injured annually per 100,000 population - 9,989 - for the Most Injured in Road Accidents list. Coming in a distant second place on this list is the (also) Arabian nation of Kuwait, with 2,231 people injured per 100,000 of population. I have no idea why this statistic is so dramatically high for Qatar, but it's interesting. Also interesting is that Qatar comes in at only number 37 on the list for Highest Car Ownership with 335 cars per 1,000 inhabitants. All I can say, Dear Readers, is a corny little poem: "be careful if you rent a car in Qatar."

Not surprisingly given its leading position on the Most Injured list, Qatar also comes in at number one (tied with the nation of South Africa) for Most Deaths in Road Accidents at 33 per 100,000 of population.

Luxembourg, with the Highest Car Ownership, made NEITHER the list for Most Injured nor the list for Most Deaths. Well done, Luxembourg; that's keeping alert behind the wheel!

And although you didn't ask, the United States came in at number 16 for Most Injured - at 626 per 100,000 of population - and as part of a six-way tie for number 23 in Most Deaths - at 15 per 100,000 people.

If YOU think you understand what this all means, I'd welcome your comments, Dear Readers.

From: New York attorney Gary E. Rosenberg (personal injury and accident attorney and lawyer; serving Brooklyn Queens¹ Bronx; Bronx Injury Attorney)

A very sad thing is a baby crib recall because the crib in question causes accidents or hurts our youngest children. Nonetheless, such recalls are constant and an all too frequent occurrence.

Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) announced the recall of all Generation 2 Worldwide and "ChildESIGNS" drop side cribs. Parents are warned that toddlers and infants may suffer serious injury or death due to a strangulation and suffocation hazard because of the design of the cribs.

Caretakers and parents are urged CPSC staff urges parents and caregivers to immediately stop using these cribs. Do not try to repair the crib.

The crib's plastic hardware can break and cause the drop side of the crib to come loose from a corner of the crib. When the drop side detaches, it creates a space into which an infant or toddler can roll and become trapped and suffer injury. When a child is trapped between the drop side and the crib mattress, there is a risk of the child accidentally suffocating or bring strangled or otherwise hurt.

Also, the crib's mattress support can come loose from the crib frame, creating a hazardous space in which an infant or toddler could become trapped and suffocate or strangle.

CPSC reports three infant deaths from suffocation. In tragic accidents, these children - from Ohio, Indiana and Virginia - became trapped and hurt between the crib mattress and the drop side when the drop side detached.

There are also reports of twenty other injuries in drop side incidents; of injury to children trapped when a drop side detached in a corner of the crib. In other accidents, children have also fallen out of the cribs and been hurt.

CPSC has received eight reports of mattress support detachment. In the space created by the detachment, three children became wedged between the crib frame and the sagging mattress and four children crawled out of the crib. There was one report of cuts and bruises.

Generation 2 went out of business in 2005, so there is limited information about the cribs. CPSC believes that there were more than 500,000 of these cribs sold to consumers. All Generation 2 Worldwide and "ChildESIGNS" drop side cribs are being recalled.

The recalled cribs were sold at numerous local furniture and retail stores including Buy Buy Baby, Kmart, and Walmart stores across the U.S. for between $70 and $150.

___________________

^{1Serving Queens neighborhoods of: Arverne, Astoria, Auburndale, Bayside, Beechhurst, Bellaire, Belle Harbor, Bellerose, Blissville, Breezy Point, Briarwood, Broad Channel, Cambria Heights, College Point, Corona, Douglaston, East Elmhurst, Edgemere, Elmhurst, Far Rockaway, Flushing, Forest Hills, Fresh Meadows, Fresh Pond, Glen Oaks, Glendale, Hillcrest, Hollis, Holliswood, Howard Beach, Hunters Point, Jackson Heights, Jamaica, Jamaica Estates, Jamaica Hills, Kew Gardens, Laurelton, Lefrak City, Linden Hill, Lindenwood, Little Neck, Long Island City, Malba, Maspeth, Middle Village, Murray Hill, Neponsit, Oakland Gardens, Ozone Park, Pomonok, Queens Village, Queensboro Hill, Rego Park, Richmond Hill, Ridgewood, Rockaway Park, Rockaway Point, Rosedale, Saint Albans, Seaside, South Jamaica, South Ozone Park, Springfield Gardens, Steinway, Sunnyside, Utopia, Wave Crest, Whitestone, Woodhaven and Woodside.}

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

There is a taxi rider's Bill of Rights that every yellow (medallion) cab must display. It says:

As a taxi rider, you have the right to:

(If you feel your rights were violated by a taxicab driver please Submit a Consumer Complaint.)

There is a livery car rider's Bill of Rights that every yellow livery car must display. It says:

As a livery passenger, you have the right to:

Q: What is a medallion and why is it important to get the receipt after the trip?

A: The medallion number, which is located on the side of the taxicab as well as on the partition in the taxicab and on the receipt, is the four letter/number unique to that cab. It is comprised of one number, followed by one letter, followed by two more numbers. If you lose property in a cab or wish to make a complaint or give a compliment, the Taxi and Limousine Commission can track down the driver or taxicab from the medallion number. Without this information or the name of the driver and the license number, it is almost impossible to track down the taxicab. Always take your receipt when exiting a taxicab!

Q: What is the light located on the back of taxicabs called and what is it used for?

A: This light is called a trouble light and is located on the back of the car, just to the left of the trunk lock. It is used to send out a silent alarm in case of a crime. A driver who is being robbed may trigger a switch in the taxi, which makes the light flash and alerts any passing police cars.

Q: How many people can fit into a medallion taxicab?

A: From N.Y.C. Driver Rule 2-43(a):

The maximum amount of passengers allowed in a medallion taxi by law is four riders in a four passenger taxicab or five riders in a five passenger tax, except that an additional passenger can be accepted if such passenger is under seven years-old and is held on the lap of an adult passenger seated in the rear.

Q: Can a passenger sit in the front seat of the taxicab if no room exists in the back seat?

A: From N.Y.C. Driver Rule 2-43(b):

The Taxi and Limousine Commission's rules state that a passenger who is unable to enter or ride in the passenger part of the taxicab is permitted to sit on the front passenger seat.

Q: Are there rules concerning multiple-stop trips?

A: Drivers are not allowed to refuse riders with more than one stop. Passengers may make unlimited stops. However, the meter will run as one non-stop trip; it is not switched off and then restarted after every stop. You pay the entire fare at the end of your trip. If the driver refuses to carry you because you request multiple destinations, get the cab's medallion number, and call 311 to make a complaint against the driver.

Q: How does the taxi's E-Z Pass work going through tolls?

A: From Driver Rule 2-25(i):

The cab driver must use the E-Z Pass when passing through tolls. The passenger then reimburses the driver for tolls paid by E-Z Pass. The passenger pays discounted E Z Pass toll price.

Q: Must a taxi driver know directions?

A: It is required that taxi drivers know the streets of Manhattan and major destinations in the outer boroughs. Also, cab drivers are required to have a map available to them. If they do not, they are in violation of a New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission rule. Drivers are not permitted to refuse service because they do not know how to reach a destination.

Q: What about taxi drivers and cell phones?

A: From Driver Rule 2-25(h):

Drivers are not allowed to use cell phones or any type of communication device, hands free or otherwise, while operating a cab.

Q: What are the regulations governing child safety seats and seatbelts in taxicabs?

A: Drivers of livery cars and yellow (medallion) cabs and their passengers are not required to use infant car seats or wear seatbelts. While the N.Y.C. Taxi and Limousine Commission recommends seat belt and car seat use, there is a state rule that exempts taxis and liveries. Passengers with children are encouraged to bring their own car seats, which the driver must allow them to attach. Furthermore, children under the age of seven are permitted to sit on an adult lap.

Q: Can a driver can refuse to take passengers to Westchester County, Nassau or Suffolk County, or Newark Airport?

A: From Driver Rule 2-50(e)(8):

If a driver has been operating the taxicab for more than eight hours of any continuous twenty-four hour period, then he or she may refuse to take a passenger outside of New York City.

Refusal Law

From Driver Rule 2-50:

It is against the law to refuse a person based on race or disability. A taxi driver is required to drive a passenger to any destination in the five boroughs.

Disability Services

From Driver Rule 2-34(a), 2-50(c), 2-50(e):

Taxis are required to transport service animals. If a passenger states that an animal is a service animal, than the driver must allow the animal and passenger into the taxi - whether the animal is secured or not. If a non-service animals is not in a secure kennel case, a driver may refuse to carry it. Drivers are required to fold up walkers and wheelchairs and place them in the trunk.

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

Q: Do you know the difference between a livery car and (medallion) yellow taxi cab?

A: Livery cars must be dispatched to pick up riders a given location. Yellow (medallion) taxi cabs can pick up street hails.

You may think you risk your life riding in a New York City taxi cab. We've all seen taxi drivers portrayed on television and in movies as barely speaking English and reckless drivers. However, a recent study shows that New York City cab drivers are less accident-prone than drivers of other vehicles. In New York State, a study showed that accident or crash rates were a lower for livery cars and taxicabs than for other types of motor vehicles. Thus, taxi and livery car passengers are less likely to be hurt in a collision than passengers in other types of vehicles.

Experts attribute this record of greater safety in pay-for-hire cars to the greater time and experience of their drivers behind the wheel - some as much as 3000 hours per year. Records for these drivers are watched by the N.Y.C. Taxi and Limousine Commission and car insurance companies. Drivers with too many accidents or traffic tickets risk losing their driver's license or insurance coverage, and their ability to earn a living.

The accident rate per car for yellow taxis is higher than for livery cars, but most yellow taxis are driven around the clock while most livery cars are driven less than 12 hours a day.

Other findings of the study:

Livery cars and taxi cabs injure pedestrians at a lower rate than other motor vehicles, but taxis are more likely to cause injuries to bicyclists than other types of vehicles.

Every day in New York City there are approximately thirty accidents involving taxi cabs. IMPORTANT INSURANCE INFORMATION: Licensed taxi cabs and livery cars must carry minimum insurance coverage of $100,000/$300,000, which means that any single person injured due to a taxi or livery driver's negligence can recover up to $100,000. The maximum that the insurance company would pay negligently injured people would be $300,000. In certain cases there may be ways to recover more money -- such as from the medallion owner; a question best asked of an experienced personal injury or negligence attorney.

Livery cars have been trying to poach street hails meant for yellow taxis more vigorously than ever, sometimes waiting outside popular shopping malls or cruising bus stops. Unlicensed "gypsy" cars that sometimes don't even have taxi or livery license plates are common in some parts of New York City. They may have no insurance at all or only minimum coverage limits of $25,000/$50,000. Hardly enough to protect consumers from a driver's negligence in the event of a serious car crash.

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

Many car owners don't give much thought to automobile insurance coverage when they buy it. Frequently, they buy what their insurance broker or salesperson recommends, with little consideration of the consequences of an accident. If you or someone else is hurt or injured in a car accident, do you know what protection or benefits your insurance policy provides?

Car insurance can include different types of coverage and the different coverages can be compared to ice cream flavors; you can have chocolate, vanilla, strawberry, or rocky road. Furthermore, where more than one vehicle is involved, it's not always clear which car's insurance policy should pay. And complications arise where buses or trucks are involved, or motorcycles or bicycles or pedestrians injured while crossing the street. And what if an accident is caused by a condition or defect in the roadway, or a defective traffic light, and so forth and so on. Coverage limits vary considerably.

LIABILITY INSURANCE: Protects the owner and driver of the car (assuming the car was operated with the owner's permission) against claims by other claiming injury to person or property from your vehicle. Likewise, your own liability insurance will protect against claims made by people hurt by, or who suffered property damage from, your vehicle. The amount of coverage purchased and how it applies can vary considerably from policy to policy between different companies and even within the same company.

MEDICAL PAYMENT COVERAGE is known in New York as "No-Fault" insurance and in some of our neighbor states as Personal Injury Protection (PIP). No-Fault coverage is very complicated but, simply put, your own car insurance pays your medical and hospital bills regardless of who caused (or is at fault for) the accident. Now the bills are NOT paid without limit and they are NOT paid indefinitely and they are NOT paid because insurance companies may employ nice people.

First, Where more than one insurance company is responsible for paying benefits for an accident, they will get together privately (secretly) and adjust the payments so the at-fault company ends up reimbursing the insurance company that paid benefits to the innocent (or more innocent) accident victim.

Second, what No-Fault giveth, it taketh away. For you can get No-Fault benefits without starting a lawsuit or even hiring lawyer. You just fill out a form and send it in and your doctor directly bills you insurance company. However, should you decide that you're injury is serious enough to warrant hiring legal counsel and considering a lawsuit, the No-Fault law provides that - in exchange for the insurance carrier nicely paying your medical bills - you must have a "serious injury" as defined by New Yore's insurance law, or else your case can be thrown out of court. Now this area of New York personal injury law is complicated stuff and changing and evolving frequently.

For more information, a good place to start would be to request a FREE copy of my book: WARNING! Things That Can Destroy Your New York Car Accident Case (And the Insurance Companies Already Know These Things).

UNINSURED and UNDERINSURED MOTORIST COVERAGES They're related, like second cousins. They are cheap coverage add-ons that can, under the right circumstances (such as a horrible accident) pay a big benefit. So insurance brokers and salespeople don't like to offer them for sale. New York State has passed a law forcing insurance brokers to offer these coverages up to at least $100,000, when they sell liability coverage of $100,000 or more. If this insurance crap sounds complicates, that's because it is. If in doubt, better get yourself a competent personal injury or accident lawyer who knows insurance law cold. This is tricky stuff.

Uninsured motorist coverage: protects you under your own policy when the other car has no insurance. The driver of the other car may have been convicted for drunk driving (DUI or DWI), which may cancel his or her insurance coverage; or maybe the insurance bill was just not paid by the car owner; or the car was stolen. Plus, there's also a whole funky crazy area of emerging law surrounding staged accidents. You don't have to be one of the people behind the scheme but possibly just an innocent victim and, "Watch out." You can be hurt with broken bones yet end up with no insurance coverage. Like I said, "Tricky stuff."

Underinsured motorist coverage: applies where you have more dollars of insurance coverage available than the other car. An plaintiff's personal injury attorney with knowledge of insurance law would have to review your policy to see if the coverage is available. Sometimes we even need to check the insurance polices of household members who own cars - even if those cars had no involvement in the accident at all. Remember, to protect you, the injured and hurt accident victim, we look for as many insurance company pockets to put your hand in as possible.

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

A: This question only makes sense if the reader is aware that there is a vocal minority who see the right to NOT wear a helmet as a freedom. These organizations fight helmet laws on any ground they can. For example, they argue that requiring helmets, without listing approved helmets, is impermissibly vague. So throw out the law, they argue.

However, Courts have repeatedly upheld motorcycle helmet use laws under the US Constitution. In 1972, a federal court in Massachusetts told a motorcyclist who objected to the law: "The public has an interest in minimizing the resources directly involved. From the moment of injury, society picks the person up off the highway; delivers him to a municipal hospital and municipal doctors; provides him with unemployment compensation if, after recovery, he cannot replace his lost job; and, if the injury causes permanent disability, may assume responsibility for his and his family's subsistence. We do not understand a state of mind that permits plaintiff to think that only he himself is concerned." This decision was affirmed by the US Supreme Court.

A: Unfortunately, while rider safety and education courses teach new motorcycle riders basic operating skills and may raise the skill level of an experienced motorcycle rider, they don't seem to reduce the risk of accident or injury. A 1996 review of the effects of motorcycle rider training in the United States, Canada, and Europe on crash risk concluded that there is "no compelling evidence that rider training is associated with reductions in collisions."

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

In an unusual joint product recall the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission and Health Canada announced a recall of CYBEX brand Strollers, because they can cause amputation and cutting or laceration of a child's small fingers and hands.

About 1100 of these strollers are being recalled in the U.S., and about 90 in Canada. They are distributed by Regal Lager Inc., of Kennesaw, Georgia.

The hazard or danger is that the stroller's hinge mechanism can catch a child's finger when the user is unfolding or opening the stroller.

There has been one reported case of a child accidentally fracturing or breaking his finger when it caught in the stroller's hinge mechanism.

This recall covers Ruby, Onyx and Topaz models of CYBEX umbrella strollers. The side of the strollers has printed on it the word "CYBEX." The stroller, manufactured in China, was sold at children's and department store last year for about $200.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled strollers and contact the distributor to receive a kit to correct the problem.

Matter of Gary R. DeFilippo Second Dept. Admitted to Bar: 2001 Discipline imposed: Automatic disbarment because of conviction of felony

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

This lawyer was employed as a Richmond County (Staten Island) District Attorney. At the South Shore Country Club - a fancy catering hall and night spot in Staten Island, New York - he smashed a glass into the left eye of fellow reveler Mitchell Miller; no accident. Miller's eye was so badly damaged that it was later removed.

To avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest because attorney DeFilippo used to work there, the Staten Island D.A. passed the case to Brooklyn, and it was prosecuted by Brooklyn assistant district attorneys. DeFilippo claimed at trial that he acted in self defense, but the jury wasn't buying.

On November 14, 2008, lawyer DeFilippo was convicted of second degree assault, a Class D felony. Before DeFilippo's sentencing, Miller read a victim's impact statement to the court, where he told how being hurt by DeFilippo had ruined his health. On March 5, 2009 DeFilippo was sentenced to 3½ years in jail. Almost a gift, because he could have received up to 25 years. He was also hit with an eleven year order of protection and two years of post-release parole supervision.

On September 22, 2009 New York's Appellate Division, Second Department, confirmed the obvious. The Court held (in part) that, "By virtue of his felony conviction, the [lawyer DeFilippo] ceased to be an attorney and counselor-at-law pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90(4)(a) and was automatically disbarred effective November 14, 2008."

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

The United States Consumer Product Safety Commission and Macy's announced a voluntary recall of First Impressions Boy's Three-Piece Santa Set. No children have been reported hurt or injured, but loose buttons on the jacket can come loose, and be swallowed by and choke a small child. This clothing, manufactured in China, was sold at Macy's stores and through its website late last year and retailed for about $30.00. Consumers are warned to return the suits to the store where purchased.

Comment: It would have been nice for consumers if this recall had been issued before the Christmas holidays!

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

7.  Q: Do helmet laws affect the cost of health care?

A: Unhelmeted riders have higher health care costs as a result of their crash injuries, and many lack health insurance. Studies show that hospital charges for helmet-less riders are significantly higher than for helmeted riders: ranging from 10% to 200% higher. For victims of serious brain injury, acute hospital care might be only the first stage of a long and costly treatment program. Other costs include ongoing medical care, long-term nursing care, rehabilitative therapy, and lost wages.

NHTSA reported in 2002 that the costs of injuries from motorcycle accidents, "consistently found that helmet use reduced the fatality rate, probability and severity of head injuries, cost of medical treatment, length of hospital stay, necessity for special medical treatments, and probability of long-term disability. A number of studies examined the question of who pays for medical costs. Only slightly more than half of motorcycle crash victims have private health insurance coverage. For patients without private insurance, a majority of medical costs are paid by the government."

Hospital studies in states that repealed helmet laws show that the costs for treating motorcyclists for brain injury surged in the years immediately following repeal of the helmet law, and deaths increased by large percentage amounts.

"Motorcyclists who believe their right to ride with a helmet is a matter of personal choice ignore the cost to taxpayers and governments of picking up the pieces, and the tab, when they crash," said Judith Lee Stone, president of Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety. "Governors should heed our warning that state coffers are drained by hidden costs of increasing motorcycle deaths and brain injuries due to lack of helmet use. Only about 50 percent of motorcycle crash victims have private health care insurance, placing the cost burden of treatment for the other 50 percent squarely on the taxpayer's ticket."

Of the states that attempted to repeal their full use helmet laws, most did not consider the publicly assisted health care costs paid for uninsured or inadequately insured brain-injured riders and, in their analysis of the bills, failed to perceive a fiscal impact. "Only Maryland got it right in calculating the fiscal impact if its law were repealed," said Stone. Maryland's Department of Legislative Services estimated that Medicaid costs could rise by $750,000 the first year, and increase to almost a million dollars a year in later years. Debate about this fiscal impact was a factor in beating back the attempt to repeal Maryland's full-use helmet law.

Riders not using helmets sustain severe and traumatic brain injury that requires expensive long-term medical and rehabilitative care. "Clearly, public monies spent on head injuries sustained by riders without helmets means less for teachers or public safety," Stone added. "A rider's choice stops being personal when it ends up costing all of us."

A: Simply put, they are far less effective at presenting catastrophic injury than helmet laws that cover all riders. In 2007, in states with "weak" helmet laws, helmets were used by fewer than half of minors that were killed I motorcycle accidents. Helmet use for all riders remains low in states where weakened laws are in effect, and death rates are 20 to 40 percent higher when states have restricted helmet laws or no helmet laws, compared with rates that require all motorcyclists to wear helmets when riding.