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

A Brooklyn driver who opened the door of her parked car, forcing a bicyclist into a fatal crash with a bus, was was indicted on a felony charge of leaving the scene of an accident, according to a new indictment. Prosecutors upgraded charges yesterday.

Krystal Francis, whose license was suspended at the time, swung open the door of her car on Atlantic Avenue in Prospect Heights on Sept. 11, 2010, knocking into cyclist Jasmine Herron into the path of a B45 bus, which ran over and killed the Colorado native. I previously blogged about this accident on September 14, 2010.

Michael Baum, Francis' lawyer said his client called 911 from the scene, left briefly to get her mother, and returned to the scene to speak to police, where she was arrested. Her lawyer argued that Francis did not really leave the accident scene.

Baum cited a photo in The Post of Francis talking to cops as evidence his client had no intention of skipping out.

He also disputed the initial charge of driving with a suspended license since "the key was not in the ignition" at the time of the accident.

He said his client was "remorseful" about the mishap, but that it was a civil matter, not a crime.

"It was a tragic accident that never should have arisen to criminal charges," Baum said. "It's obvious she was at the scene," defense lawyer Michael Baum said after the hearing at Brooklyn Supreme Court hearing. "It was a tragic accident that should never have arisen to criminal charges."

Francis, of Staten Island, was already charged with driving with a suspended license, a misdemeanor. Francis was arraigned on the indictment today and remains free on bail until her next appearance in March.

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

Comment: Every now and again I get calls from people hurt at work while sitting on a chair that collapses. Usually they suffer back, neck  or spine injuries. Nine times out of ten they get medical care and the chair is thrown away or disposed of before they return to the office, making a lawsuit against a chair manufacturer for defective chair design or manufacture impossible. THEREFORE: If you are hurt in a chair that collapses, make sure the chair is saved and put aside for later examination.

---

---

WASHINGTON, D.C. - The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) announced today that Raynor Marketing Ltd., of West Hempstead, New York, has agreed to pay a civil penalty of $390,000. The penalty agreement has been accepted provisionally by the Commission.

The settlement resolves CPSC staff allegations that Raynor Marketing Ltd. was aware of a defect involving office chairs it sold to consumers, as well incidents and injuries, yet the firm failed to report immediately to CPSC as required by federal law.

CPSC and Raynor Marketing Ltd. announced a recall of 150,000 office chairs in October 2009. Bolts attaching the seatback can loosen and detach, posing a fall and injury hazard to consumers. Raynor imported the chairs between May 2006 and March 2009 for sale exclusively at Office Depot stores nationwide and on online at Office Depot.com.

Federal law requires manufacturers, distributors, and retailers to report to CPSC immediately (within 24 hours) after obtaining information reasonably supporting the conclusion that a product contains a defect which could create a substantial product hazard, creates an unreasonable risk of serious injury or death, or fails to comply with any consumer product safety rule or any other rule, regulation, standard, or ban enforced by CPSC.

In agreeing to the settlement, Raynor Marketing Ltd. denies CPSC staff allegations that it knowingly violated the law."

---

---

Steelcase Recalls Cachet Swivel Chairs Due to Fall Hazard

WASHINGTON, D.C. - The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and Health Canada, in cooperation with the firm named below, today announced a voluntary recall of the following consumer product. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

Name of Product: Cachet Swivel Chairs

Units: About 165,000

Manufacturer: Steelcase Inc., of Grand Rapids, Mich.

Hazard: The front seat support part of the chair can crack and fail, posing a fall hazard to consumers.

Incidents/Injuries: The firm has received one report of a chair support failure resulting in a back injury.

Description: This recall involves all Steelcase Cachet swivel chairs with model number 487 manufactured between May 2002 and October 15, 2009. The chairs have a plastic slotted seat and back design and some were sold with back and seat cushions. The model number and manufacture date are printed on a label on the underside of the base of the chair.

Sold by: Authorized Steelcase dealers and retail outlets including Healthy Back Store, CSN, Home Office Solutions, Office & Company and Sam Flax stores nationwide and online at www.store.steelcase.com between May 2002 and November 2009 for up to $600.

Manufactured in:  United StatesRemedy: Steelcase will replace chairs for individual consumers who purchased chairs online or from retail outlets listed above. For all commercial customers who purchase chairs in quantity, Steelcase will replace the chair support parts. Chairs should be inspected for cracks in the front seat support according to the instructions posted at http://recall.steelcase.com. If any cracks are identified, consumers should immediately stop using the chairs and contact Steelcase. Even if no cracks are identified, consumers should contact Steelcase to arrange for the replacement process and periodically check for cracks until the chair supports are replaced.

Consumer Contact: For additional information, contact Steelcase toll-free at (800) 391-7194 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday or visit the firm's website at http://recall.steelcase.com. Consumers can also email the firm at cachetrecall@steelcase.com

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

The drunk son of one Bernie Madoff's original investors was busted for smashing into a food deliveryman on a bicycle - and then trying to speed off on a Midtown street. The arrest took place on Saturday, January 29, 2011.

Clark Gettinger, 40, was behind the wheel of a 2001 Lexus sedan heading north on Eighth Ave. near W. 47th St. when he hit the bicyclist from behind at 10:15 p.m. Friday, January 28, 2011, police said.

The deliveryman, Ricardo Gonzalez, toppled from his bike and was then struck by a silver BMW hat was behind the Lexus, police said.

The Lexus rammed into the 28-year-old bike rider near 47th Street with an impact so violent that the cyclist's head knocked out the windshield on the passenger side. Gonzalez was bleeding heavily from the head as he lay unconscious in the street but Gettinger never slowed down, witnesses told police.

"I saw he had a lot of blood," said Paulo Gadoy, who works at a restaurant across the street.

Meanwhile, Gettinger continued up Eighth Avenue. When he got stuck in traffic at 50th Street, cops were able to surround the vehicle. Gettinger tried to flee on foot but was soon captured and placed under arrest. He's been charged with DWI, vehicular assault and leaving the scene of an accident. Gettinger, who lives just blocks from the accident scene, was awaiting arraignment at Manhattan Criminal Court Saturday afternoon.

Gettinger is the son of the late Robert Gettinger, an investor who lost millions in Bernie Madoff's Ponzi scheme.

Gonzalez, who lives in Inwood, was listed in critical condition at Bellevue Hospital.

"He was by the back tires under the gas tank," said witness Blake Kirschbaum, 29, a bouncer at a nearby bar. "He didn't look too well. He wasn't moving," he added.

Firefighters from Engine 54, which is only half a block away, came down the street to try to save the man.

"It took 15 minutes to get him out from under the car," Kirschbaum said.

Robert Gettinger, who died in July 2009, was one of Madoff's first investors, initially entrusting the con man with money in 1973.

When the notorious Ponzi scheme was exposed in late 2008, the elder Gettinger told the Wall Street Journal that he and Madoff had grown close and even attended bar mitzvahs for each other's sons.

Gettinger said Madoff misled him to believe that his investment had grown to $10 million, with a $3 million trust fund for Clark and his brother Scott.

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

With accidents stemming from pedestrian distraction on the rise throughout the nation, Senator Carl Kruger (D-Brooklyn) has re-introduced legislation making it illegal to use an iPod, cell phone, Blackberry or any other electronic device while crossing the street.

If the new legislation is passed, people caught breaking the rule could face a court summons and be asked to pay a fine of $100.

The New York Times reports:

Many joggers don earbuds and listen to music to distract themselves from the rigors of running. But might the Black Eyed Peas or Rihanna distract them so much that they jog into traffic?

That is the theory of several lawmakers pushing the latest generation of legislation dealing with how devices like iPods and cellphones affect traffic safety. The ubiquity of interactive devices has propelled the science of distraction -- and now efforts to legislate against it -- out of the car and into the exercise routine.

In New York, a bill is pending in the legislature's transportation committee that would ban the use of mobile phones, iPods or other electronic devices while crossing streets -- runners and other exercisers included. Legislation pending in Oregon would restrict bicyclists from using mobile phones and music players, and a Virginia bill would keep such riders from using a "hand-held communication device."

In California, State Senator Joe Simitian, who led a successful fight to ban motorists from sending text messages and using hand-held phones, has reintroduced a bill that failed last year to fine bicyclists $20 for similar multitasking.

"The big thing has been distracted driving, but now it's moving into other ways technology can distract you, into everyday things," said Anne Teigen, a policy specialist for the National Conference of State Legislatures, which tracks legislative developments.

Exercising in Central Park on Tuesday, Marie Wickham, 56, said she understood what all the fuss was about: "They're zigging, they're zagging, they don't know what's around them. It can definitely be dangerous."

But Ms. Wickham added that she would be opposed to any ban of such devices. "I think it's an infringement on personal rights," she said. "At some point, we need to take responsibility for our own stupidity."

Pedestrian fatalities increased slightly for the first time in four years in the first six months of 2010, according to a report released last week by the Governors Highway Safety Association, an organization based in Washington that represents state highway safety agencies.

Among the states, Arizona and Florida had the largest increases in pedestrian fatalities, followed by North Carolina, Oregon and Oklahoma. Nationally, pedestrian traffic fatalities had dropped to 4,091 in 2009 from 4,892 in 2005, the report stated.

"One of the reasons we think the trend may be turning negatively is because of distracted pedestrians," said Jonathan Adkins, spokesman for the safety group.

The New York bill was proposed by State Senator Carl Kruger, a Brooklyn Democrat who has grown alarmed by the amount of distraction he sees on the streets in his neighborhood and across New York City. Since September, Mr. Kruger wrote in the bill, three pedestrians have been killed and one was critically injured while crossing streets and listening to music through headphones.

"We're taught from knee-high to look in both directions, wait, listen and then cross," he said.

"You can perform none of those functions if you are engaged in some kind of wired activity."

Hal Pashler, a professor of cognitive science at the University of California, San Diego, said that listening to sounds through two earbuds creates a particularly powerful kind of "auditory masking" that drowns out external sounds. Such masking not only goes directly into the ear, it also is involuntary in the sense that the sound floods the brain even when a person tries to listen to something else -- say, traffic.

"It's even more overwhelming than the kind of muiltitasking costs we normally talk about," Mr. Pashler said.

As it is written, Mr. Kruger's proposal, which was first introduced in 2007, would apply only to cities with populations of one million or more. But Mr. Kruger would like to expand the bill to cover even smaller cities. Violators would face a civil summons and a $100 fine.

"This is not government interference," he said. "This is more like saying, 'You're doing something that could be detrimental to yourself and others around you.' "

But some outdoor exercisers who rely on music for a boost see the proposals as little more than a distraction for law enforcement officials. "Chasing down the runner who has his headphones in instead of chasing down the driver who's been at the local pub sounds like they're trying to pick the low-hanging fruit," said John Wiant, 43, a runner from Newport Beach, Calif.

In Arkansas, an avalanche of criticism on Tuesday led a legislator to withdraw a proposal that would have banned pedestrians from wearing headphones in both ears. Other lawmakers have tried to strike some sort of balance between public safety and the gravity of the offense.

In California, Mr. Simitian is proposing the $20 fine on bicyclists who send text messages and a $30 increase on the existing $20 penalty for doing the same activity while driving a car, a difference that he said reflects the relative risk the behavior poses to others.

"At some point," he said, "you do have to simply rely on the good judgment of folks as they go through their daily lives."

Mr. Simitian added that he believed that efforts to legislate against distraction outside the car could diminish the seriousness of hard-fought campaigns and laws meant to curb distracted driving.

"Is there a problem out there with distracted pedestrians? I'd be the first to acknowledge it," he said. But, he added, "It's appropriate to distinguish between 4,000 pounds of steel and glass coming at you and a pedestrian who may well put themselves at risk but probably poses less of a risk to the general public."

Gary comments: Do we really need a law to protect us from our own stupidity? Maybe bicycle riders shouldn't be allowed to wear earphones, but street-crossers? Especially for fat guys like me, who don't jog but just power walk with earphones in. This seems ridiculous. What next? Maybe the bottle of water I carry could be a weapon? Senator Kruger's proposed law is dumb, dumb, dumb.

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

---

---

Bus flips over in Brooklyn and injures children

Three children were injured when the mini-school bus they were traveling in flipped on its side after it was rear-ended this afternoon in Brooklyn, authorities said.

The bus, which was carrying the three kids and two adults, was driving on Stone Avenue near Bergen Street when a car behind it ran a stop sign and slammed into it at 4:30 p.m.

An employee of a nearby dollar store rushed over to pull out the hurt bus passengers.

"I pulled out three kids -- they were crying and traumatized," said the worker, Henry Pacheco, 33. "They kept calling for me to get them out."

Two other people in the car also were hurt.

The injured victims were taken to both Brookdale Hospital and Kings County Hospital in stable condition, cops said.

---

Manhattan Woman struck & killed by garbage truck

A woman walking on the Upper East Side Monday this evening (January 24, 2011) was struck with such force by a garbage truck that her body was cut in half, authorities said.

The woman, whose identity is not yet known, was on 1st Avenue between 90th and 91st streets around 5:45 p.m. when the private sanitation truck slammed into her, sources said.

The woman was pronounced dead at the scene. Police are still investigating the accident but said the driver of the truck remained at the scene.

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

 

Juan Baten, a 22-year-old Brooklyn worker from Guatamala, was killed early Monday, January 24, 2011, after falling into a dough mixer at a tortilla factory, police said.

The freak accident happened at Tortilleria Chinantla in Williamsburg at 2:30 a.m. when Baten tried to retrieve an item after dropping it inside the waist-high machine, investigators said.
Cops say security video from the plant shows the victim reaching into the mixer, as if to grab
something, and being sucked in, police said.

Investigators believe the turbine mixer instantly sucked Baten in and broke his neck.

Baten was pronounced dead at the scene. Police said there is no criminality.

No prior violations have been found as of yet at the site, but the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration is investigating the incident, according to an OSHA spokesperson.

"I'm still in shock," Baten's common-law wife, Rosario Ramirez, 23, told the New York Daily News. "I got a call at 2:30 a.m. They told me he fell into the machine."

At the couple's tiny studio apartment in Bushwick, Brooklyn, Monday afternoon, candles burned on either side of a framed picture of Baten and Ramirez and their 7-month-old daughter, Daisy Stefanie.

Fighting back tears as she spoke, Ramirez recalled how her husband was raised in a small Guatemalan village and came to America six years ago.

She said he had been working at the factory without legal documents. He earned minimum wage, but worked long hours so he could support their budding family.

"He worked six days a week, nine hours a day," she said. "He didn't complain; he liked his job."

"He did everything so we could have a better life," she added, noting she plans to bury him in his
homeland.

A fellow worker called 911 after the accident, but Baten was dead by the time emergency responders arrived, police said.

The company has been in business since 1992.

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

Residential fire deaths have decreased steadily as the number of homes with smoke alarms increased. Reports from the National Fire Protection Association show that people

have nearly a 50 percent better chance of surviving a fire if their home has the recommended number of smoke alarms.

I have blogged about accidental fires causing death and serious burns and other injuries. On February 20, 2010 fire swept through a Bronx apartment building, burning a 60 year-old tenant

and causing a 39 year-old woman to fracture both legs after she grabbed onto a window air conditioner to escape the flames, falling several stories down to the ground. No mention is made of smo0ke detectors, but I bet that properly located andworking smoke detectors - which would have given the residents time to escape - would have lessened the injuries.

Likewise, news reports do not mention smoke detectors when they reported that on December 31, 2009 an 81 year-old Brooklyn grandmother died in a fire in her apartment. Her family tried to rescue her but they could not get to her through the heat and smoke

The entire Balbuena family of Manhattan was wiped out by fire on October 11, 2008 at around 6:30 A.M. at 401 West 18th Street in Manhattan's Chelsea neighborhood. Their apartment's partially-melted smoke detector had been twice disabled. It should have been wired into the building electrical system, and had a battery back-up. The battery had been removed and the wires disconnected, the New York City Fire Department said. A working smoke detector might have saved the six people.

Smoke alarms that are 10 years old are near the end of their service life and should be replaced. Some people think that their smoke alarm sits idle until smoke is present. But it is working every minute, constantly monitoring the air 24 hours a day. For example, an ionization smoke alarm goes through 3.5 million monitoring cycles in 10 years. In a photoelectric smoke alarm, a light operates 24 hours a day to check for smoke particles in the air. Just like any electrical appliance, the components of smoke alarms wear out over time. When a smoke alarm reaches 10 years of use, the potential of failing to detect a fire increases substantially. Replacing them after 10 years reduces the likelihood of failure.

Both hard-wired and battery-operated alarms are equally affected by age. If you have a monitored home alarm system, there is generally a smoke detector included in the system that will directly notify the monitoring company if the smoke detector is set off. The monitoring company will then notify the local fire department.

The number of smoke detectors and their location depends on two factors, the number of levels in the home and the number of bedrooms.

For new homes, install a smoke alarm in each bedroom, one outside the bedroom area that is close enough to be heard through closed doors, and a minimum of one on each level of the home. The objective of having a smoke alarm outside the bedroom area is to alert sleeping occupants of a fire that starts outside of the bedrooms. For this reason, if the bedrooms in a home are located in different areas, than each area should have its own smoke alarm. If a home is large, it is better to use more than one on each level. The closer the smoke alarm is to the fire source, the faster it will work, so extra units give you more safety.

Unfortunately, the requirements for existing homes are not as stringent as new home requirements. In existing homes, a smoke alarm is only required outside the bedroom area and one on each level of the home. However, it is recommended that homeowners install additional smoke alarms, and existing homes should be equipped with at least the same number of smoke alarms that are required in new homes. It makes sense to install a smoke alarm in each bedroom. A good number of fires start in bedrooms, and the closer the smoke alarm is to the fire, the faster it will alert you. If you need assistance in determining the number of smoke detectors for your home and where they should be placed, contact your local fire department for advice.

Smoke alarms are not designed to work in extreme heat or cold, or in areas where smoke and dust are common. Thus, they are not recommended for unheated attics or similar spaces. The manufacturer's instructions will include the temperature range that the unit is designed for. Smoke alarms should not be used in garages for two reasons. First, garages are usually not heated or cooled, and thus are sometimes above or below the temperature range that the unit was designed for. Second, the smoke from engine exhaust fumes may cause nuisance alarms and clog the smoke alarm.

The primary area of concern is your kitchen. A smoke alarm that is installed too close to cooking appliances may result in nuisance alarms. When a smoke alarm is installed within 20 feet of cooking, it should either be photoelectric or have a silencing button.

Heat detectors are now referred to as heat alarms. Smoke alarms consistently respond much faster to typical residential fires than heat alarms. Heat alarms are recommended for additional protection. Additionally, heat alarms are recommended for areas in the home where smoke alarms are not recommended. The examples include garages, attics, unheated crawl spaces and kitchens. The air in the spaces like garages can become too hot or cold for smoke alarms to operate properly. Smoke alarms are generally not recommended for kitchens because the cooking may cause nuisance alarms. On the other hand, if the smoke alarm does not cause nuisance alarms, then its location is fine.

The biggest reason that smoke alarms do not work is because people remove the batteries - either to stop the low battery signal or a nuisance alarm - and forget to replace them. Testing your smoke alarm is very important. It is recommended that you test your alarms regularly, at least once a month. It is also suggested you replace the batteries at least once a year. Try to pick a date that is important to you or easy to remember, such as Christmas, birthdays or anniversaries.

I blogged that The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission urges residents to make a habit of changing carbon monxide and smoke alarm batteries when the time changes and that consumers also test their electrical appliances. For example, I blogged about a U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission recall of a brand of dehumidifiers - which remove moisture from the air. Usually used in warm weather, Home Depot recalled Hampton Bay brand dehumidifiers that can catch overheat and lead to an accidental fire and hurt or injure people by burning them.

Smoke alarms sold with 10-year batteries are normally sealed to prevent the replacement of the battery. This is because the smoke alarm itself should be replaced after 10 years. The low-battery signal will begin to "chirp" (a brief beep about once every minute), meaning that it is time to discard the whole unit and replace it with a new smoke alarm. You can buy 10-year batteries that fit in other smoke alarms, but you should never put one in an older smoke alarm. The battery will outlast the working life of the smoke alarm. With this being said, 10-year batteries do not last their life in photoelectric smoke alarms. If you install a long-term battery in a photoelectric smoke alarm, plan on a scheduled battery change and do not keep the alarm in service longer than the recommended time. Ten-year batteries will not last for their stated service life

in photoelectric smoke alarms because this type of smoke alarm uses more power than an ionization type. However, there is nothing wrong with installing a long-life battery in them as long as you remember to replace the smoke alarm itself when it is 10 years old.

It is important to clean your alarm. Smoke alarms have small screens around the sensing chamber to keep small bugs and dust particles. These can accumulate on the screen and slow air movement. Vacuum around the outside of the alarm at least annually.

Below is a comparison of household detectors:

*Ionization vs. Photoelectric - The two most commonly recognized smoke detection technologies are ionization smoke detection and photoelectric smoke detection.

*Ionization smoke detection is generally more responsive to flaming fires. How they work: Ionization-type smoke alarms have a small amount of radioactive material between two electrically charged plates, which ionizes the air and causes current to flow between the plates. When smoke enters the chamber, it disrupts the flow of ions, thus reducing the flow of current and activating the alarm.

*Photoelectric smoke detection is generally more responsive to fires that begin with a long period of smoldering (called "smoldering fires").

How they work: Photoelectric-type alarms aim a light source into a sensing chamber at an angle away from the sensor. Smoke enters the chamber, reflecting light onto the light sensor; triggering the alarm.For each type of smoke alarm, the advantage it provides may be critical to life safety in some fire situations. Home fatal fires, day or night, include a large number of smoldering fires and a large number of flaming fires. You can not predict the type of fire you may have in your home or when it will occur. Any smoke alarm technology, to be acceptable, must perform acceptably for both types of fires in order to provide early warning of fire at all times of the day or night and whether you are asleep or awake. The best evidence has always indicated that either type of smoke alarm will provide sufficient time for escape for most people for most fires of either smoldering or flaming type. However, research is ongoing, and standards are living documents. If at any time, research points to a different conclusion, then that will lead to proposals for changes in the NFPA standard or the closely related Underwriters Laboratories standard for testing and approving smoke alarms. Both organizations currently have task groups looking at smoke alarm performance in the current home environment.

For the best protection, homeowners should install/incorporate both technologies in their homes. In addition to individual ionization and photoelectric alarms, combination alarms that include both technologies in a single device are available.

REPORTS AND STATISTICS

Almost all households in the U.S. have at least one smoke alarm, yet in 2003-2006, smoke alarms were present in only two-thirds (69 percent) of all reported home fires and operated in just under half (47 percent) of the reported home fires. ("Homes" includes one- and two-bedroom apartments, and manufactured housing.) Forty percent of all home fire deaths resulted from fires in homes with no smoke alarms, while 23 percent resulted from homes in which smoke alarms were present but did not operate. The death rate per 100 reported fires was twice as high in homes without a working smoke alarm as it was in home fires with this protection. Hardwired smoke alarms are more reliable than those powered solely by batteries.

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

My daughter is returning to college in two days to start her Spring semester.

College brings a sense of independence for most students. With so much anticipation and excitement, personal safety can be easily overlooked. Students may believe they are protected because they are surrounded by their peers and feel relatively insulated in their own "community" -- the college campus. Unfortunately, crime is just as high, sometimes higher, on campus as it is off campus. With that said, safety awareness on college campuses has never been more important.

For the first time, your children will be totally responsible for their own personal safety. Are they prepared in case an emergency occurs? Will they feel safe and secure?

Here are a several campus safety tips to help students stay safe while away at school. Practicing these safety fundamentals can help eliminate many of the risks they could potentially face.

*Be aware of your surroundings. This is the single most important tip to ensure your personal safety. Know all of the routes around campus. Be confident. Walk with your head up, look around and notice everything. Look into a stranger's face and take note of distinguishing features. Notice when a vehicle slows down suspiciously and pay attention to the license plate. Be aware of anyone loitering or hanging around campus, your dorm, vehicle, etc.

*Lock all doors and windows. When leaving your dorm or apartment, make sure that all doors and windows are locked - including the main building entry and exits. Never prop doors open. Never compromise your safety for a roommate who asks you to leave the door unlocked.

*Do not loan your keys to anyone. Re-key locks when a key is lost or stolen.

*Plan ahead. Be safe when going out alone. Whether your plans are a social event or studying at the campus library, map out a safety plan in advance. Mention your plans to a friend and let someone know if your plans change. Avoid going out alone at night. Try to stay in a group. Let at least one person know where you are going and who you will be with. If you do go out alone, avoid potentially unsafe shortcuts. Travel on well-lit and well-traveled streets. Carry emergency cab fare.

*Learn what help campus security can offer to increase your safety. If their services are only available in certain areas or if they do not patrol some portions of the campus at regular intervals, then this is valuable information to you.

*Equip your cell phone. Program important phone numbers (campus security, police, etc.) in your cell for emergencies. Put the word "ICE" in your cell phone with a parent or guardian number programmed. The authorities know to look for this code in case an emergency occurs and they need to get in touch with a relative. Make sure your cell phone is fully charged before going out.

*Always trust your instincts. If something seems "off," it probably is. Trust your intuition. Call the police or campus security if something doesn't seem "right."

*Always enlist the company of at least one other person when jogging or exercising outside. Do not wear headphones as they can seriously impair your ability to predict and avoid a confrontation.

*Do not leave your identification, wallets, checkbooks, jewelry, cameras, and other valuables in open view.

*Do not go to the ATM at night.

*Watch your drink. Do not accept drinks (alcoholic or otherwise) from others. Remember that alcohol is the #1 date rape drug.

*When dating, meet at a populated location. Choose a restaurant or other public location. Never meet in a dorm room or apartment.

*Check around your vehicle as you approach it. If there is a van parked on one side of your car, get in on the other side. Check under your vehicle and others around you.

*Practice Internet safety. Use caution when posting personal information on social networking sites such as Facebook. Avoid "friending" people you don't know.

*Don't allow your photo or personal information published for the campus community. It is not uncommon for upperclassmen and fraternities to use this information to "target" naïve freshmen on campus.

Colleges are generally safe places for our children. Because of this, students tend to let their guard down. Being armed with basic safety awareness can significantly reduce their vulnerability. Bottom line - help prepare your college-bound children to be responsible for their own safety while away at college. They will go confidently and ready for one of the most exciting ventures of their lives.

Remember - book smart is something you can learn anytime; street smart is something you have to know and practice every day of your life.

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

The New York Jets won a big football game Sunday night, January 16, 2011, against the New England Patriots.

Raymond Larsen, age 46, was wearing a Jets jersey and watching the game with his girlfriend in Staten Island, New York. After the Jets victory, at about 9:00 PM he went outside his home to celebrate and decided to sled down his steep driveway on a plastic disc.

Larsen, who reportedly had been drinking, shot into the street and was struck and killed by a passing 2006 Hyundai S.U.V.

He was rushed to Staten Island University South, where he died from head trauma.

Two green saucer sleds lay near a pool of blood last night as cops questioned the teary-eyed driver.

"Its very sad, especially during the new year," said Larsen's neighbor Dennis Miglino, 57.

"He works a lot on his house. He was unbelievable when it came to Halloween decorations and Christmas decorations."

"He was a big Jets fan," Miglino added. "He was a nice guy."

The driver, a 61-year-old woman, passed a Breathalyzer test and was not charged with a crime.

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

I have always said that borrowing against a law suit is a bad idea and should be used only in an emergency. This is not like a bank loan. Smart personal injury lawyers explain to their clients that this is a loan of "last resort."

Even though there is no repayment of the loan if you lose your case, if you win a settlement or verdict award, the interests costs can be devastating. Sometimes shopping around for a lawsuit lender with a lower rate helps, bu they can be hard to find.

Comment: For more information read my FREE Special Report, "Legal, Ethical, and Proper Way to Borrow Money Against Your Case" at:

www.garyrosenberg-law.com/documents/Reports/Report_06.pdf

Some Facts

Mr. Lawsuit Plaintiff ("PLTF") debilitated by a stroke while using the pain medicine Vioxx, was facing eviction from his Georgia home in 2008. He could not wait for the impending settlement of a class-action lawsuit against the drug's maker, so he borrowed $9,150 from a Legal Finance Company ("FINANCE CO.") , pledging to repay it from his winnings.

By the time PLTF received an initial settlement payment of $27,000, just 18 months later, he owed FINANCE CO. almost the entire sum: $23,588.

Ernesto Kho had pressing needs of his own. Medical bills had piled up after he was injured in a 2004 car accident. So he borrowed $10,500 from Cambridge Management Group, another company that lends money to plaintiffs in personal-injury lawsuits. Two years later, Mr. Kho, a New Jersey resident, got a $75,000 settlement -- and a bill from Cambridge for $35,939.

The business of lending to plaintiffs arose over the last decade, part of a trend in which banks, hedge funds and private investors are putting money into other people's lawsuits. But the industry, which now lends plaintiffs more than $100 million a year, remains unregulated in most states, free to ignore laws that protect people who borrow from most other kinds of lenders.

Unrestrained by laws that cap interest rates, the rates charged by lawsuit lenders often exceed 100 percent a year, according to a review by The New York Times and the Center for Public Integrity. Furthermore, companies are not required to provide clear and complete pricing information -- and the details they do give are often misleading.

A growing number of lawyers, judges and regulators say that the regulatory vacuum is allowing lawsuit lenders to siphon away too much of the money won by plaintiffs.

"It takes advantage of the meek, the weak and the ignorant," said Robert J. Genis, a personal-injury lawyer in the Bronx who said that he had warned clients against borrowing. "It is legal loan-sharking."

Colorado filed suit in December against FINANCE CO. and LawCash, two of the largest companies, charging them with violating the state's lending laws.

"It looks like a loan and smells like a loan and we believe that these are, in fact, high-cost loans," John W. Suthers, the state's attorney general, said in a recent interview. "I can see a legitimate role for it, but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't be subject to regulation."

The companies, however, say that they are not lenders because plaintiffs are not required to repay the money if they lose their cases. The industry refers to the transactions as investments, advances, financing or funding. The argument has persuaded regulators in many states, including New York, that lawsuit lenders are not subject to existing lending laws. FINANCE CO. and LawCash have now filed suit against Colorado, asking the court to prevent the state from using lending laws to regulate the industry.

Companies also say that they must charge high prices because betting on lawsuits is very risky. Borrowers can lose, or win less than expected, or cases can simply drag on, delaying repayment until the profit is drained from the investment.

To fortify its position, the industry has started volunteering to be regulated -- but on its own terms. The companies, and lawyers who support the industry, have lobbied state legislatures to establish rules like licensing and disclosure requirements, but also to make clear that some rules, like price caps, do not apply.

Maine and Ohio passed the first such laws in 2008, followed by Nebraska last year. Sympathetic legislators introduced bills in six other states last year; the measures passed the state Senates in New York and Illinois.

Harvey Hirschfeld, a founder of LawCash who keeps binders filled with thank-you notes from borrowers on a shelf in his Brooklyn office, said lawmakers had responded to plaintiffs' needs.

"Sometimes people are in the wrong place at the wrong time, they get in an accident, they're out of work, they don't have cash sitting in the bank, their friends can't help, and they're faced with a terrible situation," said Mr. Hirschfeld, who also is chairman of the industry's trade group. "It's not for everyone, but it's there when you need it."

High Rates, Low Risk

There was little risk in lending money to PLTF. The maker of Vioxx, Merck, had already agreed to settle the Vioxx class action. The projected payouts were relatively easy to calculate: PLTF's lawyer estimated that he would eventually get a total of about $80,000.

FINANCE CO. still imposed its standard pricing: 50 percent of the loan amount if repayment was made within six months, with regular increases thereafter.

PLTF and his wife resented the high cost, but they had run through their savings. PLTF was legally blind and needed regular dialysis. His wife had left work to care for him.

They borrowed $3,000 in February 2008, $3,000 in March and $3,150 in July. "We were having a crisis, and they knew we were having a crisis," PLTF's wife said. "They take advantage of people that are in need."

FINANCE CO. made loans on similar terms to 43 Vioxx plaintiffs, totaling about $224,000.

Orran L. Brown, the Virginia lawyer appointed to disburse the settlement, described the cost of the loans as "unconscionable."

"There was very little risk of nonrecovery, but they were charging full freight," he said.

But FINANCE CO.'s chief said the performance of the Vioxx loans showed why FINANCE CO. must charge high rates. Eight of the 43 borrowers failed to qualify for the settlement, he said, and an additional seven did not win enough to pay the full amount that they owed.

The company waived its claim against PLTF and his wife after the couple complained to the federal judge overseeing the Vioxx case. FINANCE CO.'s chief said that FINANCE CO. acted out of compassion for the couple's personal difficulties, but that the company had done nothing wrong. PLTF and his wife asked for money and FINANCE CO. clearly explained its terms, FINANCE Co.'s chief said. He provided copies of documents on which PLTF had recorded his thanks for the loans.

"We were there when he needed help with his house note and his car note and his medical bills. And he was plenty grateful at the time," FINANCE CO.'s chief said.

Lenders more often invest in cases even earlier in the process, before a settlement is on the table.

James N. Giordano, chief executive of Cambridge Management Group, a New Jersey lender, compared the deals to venture capital. "It's as if your buddy came up to you and said, 'I'm starting a business, I need $25,000 -- and, by the way, you may never get your money back,' " he said.

Lawsuit lenders, however, are much better than venture firms at picking winners. Lenders pay lawyers to screen cases, looking for slam-dunks like Vioxx. Three of the largest companies each estimated that they rejected about 70 percent of applications. FINANCE CO. said it had approved about 80,000 of 250,000 applications in recent years. To further limit losses, companies say they generally lend no more than 10 or 20 percent of the amount they expect the borrower to win.

Companies say they still lose money in a significant share of cases, from 5 to 20 percent, although there is no way to verify those numbers.

But courts in several states -- including Michigan, New York and North Carolina -- have ruled in recent years that individual borrowers did not need to repay lawsuit loans, finding that the apparent risks did not justify the outsize prices. The rulings have encouraged lenders to avoid judicial scrutiny. Dimitri Mishiev, who runs Alliance Claim Funding, another Brooklyn lender, said that while his prices were fair, he tried to invest only in cases he expected to be settled before trial.

"Everything that might have to go before a judge, you stay away because you don't want the judge to be in the position of saying, 'I don't want that level of payment. I think it's unreasonable,' " Mr. Mishiev said. "We don't want judges to shine a light on us."

Truth in Lending

Lawsuit lenders do not advertise prices; they advertise convenience. They send letters to people who file suits, and run ads on daytime and late-night television, emphasizing that money is available quickly and easily.

When David Kert, a personal-injury lawyer, took a job in 2007 screening applicants for the lender Whitehaven Plaintiff Funding in New York City, he said he was told not to mention the cost of the loans unless asked directly.

Mr. Kert spent the next year answering 50 to 60 calls each workday from plaintiffs and their lawyers. He said many of those people ended up taking loans from Whitehaven without ever asking the price -- as high as 99 percent of the loan amount in the first year.

"I'm sorry I spent any time there," Mr. Kert said recently.

Whitehaven did not return calls for comment, but other industry executives are quick to note that borrowers are consenting adults. Furthermore, under the terms of a 2005 agreement between the largest lenders and the New York attorney general's office, borrowers must be given a table showing what they will owe at six-month intervals. The agreement also requires lenders to obtain the signed consent of the borrower's lawyer.

"I don't know any other industry that is as clear as that. Everything is written on the contract and the attorney is reviewing it for you," Mr. Hirschfeld said.

But these safeguards are significantly less strict than the requirements that state and federal laws impose on other consumer lenders. They do not dictate how interest rates should be calculated, for example, making it difficult for borrowers to compare prices.

Moreover, outside of New York and the few states that regulate the industry, lenders are not required to follow those procedures -- and in several cases examined by The Times and the Center for Public Integrity, they did not do so.

Carolyn Williams borrowed $5,000 in 2007 from USClaims, a Delaware lender, while pursuing a disability lawsuit against her former employer, an Alabama nursing home. Three years later, her case is unresolved. Her debt stands at $18,976.

Ms. Williams, who left her nursing job after experiencing a debilitating asthma attack, contacted USClaims after seeing an ad on late-night television. She was struggling to pay her bills and her case, which argues that the asthma had been caused by exposure to floor cleaning chemicals, was moving slowly. Two days after she called USClaims, the company wired $5,000 to her bank account.

Ms. Williams said she did not ask about the cost of the loan and she was not told. Her lawyer, Timothy Hughes, said he was not contacted by USClaims until after the loan was made. The contract Ms. Williams signed quoted an annual interest rate of 39 percent, compounded monthly. In fact, she was charged interest and fees equaling 76 percent of the loan amount in the first year.

"I was definitely misled," Ms. Williams said recently. "I never expected that high of a rate."

Darryl Levine, the president of Delaware-based USClaims, said Ms. Williams's complaint was groundless because the contract clearly showed how much she would owe.

"In over 14 years in this business, I have never had any complaint about the rate-of-return disclosure," Mr. Levine said.

Seeking State Approval

The industry's pursuit of regulation on its own terms began in Maine in 2007.

Sharon Anglin Treat, a lawyer and state legislator, had proposed a bill making clear that lawsuit lenders were subject to state consumer protection laws. She said she could not understand why the industry should be allowed to charge higher rates than other lenders.

FINANCE CO., LawCash and other companies persuaded other legislators to reverse the intent of the bill, instead making clear that the rules did not apply to lawsuit loans. Both Ms. Treat and Mr. Hirschfeld said the debate turned on the testimony of three Maine residents who had benefited from the loans. "These are powerful companies that have lots of money, and they brought in people with these sob stories," Ms. Treat said.

Supporters of lawsuit lending next turned its attention to Ohio, where the state's Supreme Court had declared lawsuit lending illegal in 2003. This time, Mr. Hirschfeld said that the industry asked lawyers throughout the state for examples of clients who had suffered because they were not able to borrow money. Both chambers of the legislature voted unanimously in 2008 to legalize the loans.

Last year, Nebraska followed suit, passing a bill sponsored by State Senator Steve Lathrop, a trial lawyer.

"My own personal view of these groups is that I discourage clients from using them," Mr.

Lathrop said during the final debate. "I tell them, go borrow from anybody you can before you have to use them."

"But," he concluded, "the reality is, sometimes there's no other place to turn."

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

I recently blogged about a Manhattan tenant, a senior citizen no less, who accidentally set herself on fire trying to keep warm in her apartment by running her kitchen oven and stove after her building lost heat. The only conclusion to draw is that heating an apartment with an oven and stove is a bad idea.

Some residents turn to space heaters when the weather turns cold. While these appliances are designed to provide heat to residential living areas, certain safety rules must be observed to prevent fire, burns, and even death.

Convection heaters can heat large areas and are installed with a blower or fan. Radiant heaters are generally used in smaller areas and even under desks. Some heaters are powered by electricity, while others run by flammable fuels such as oil or kerosene.

House fires can be caused by misuse of space heaters or by design or manufacturing defects. In order to protect your family and your home, follow the recommendations set forth below.

*DO NOT USE SPACE HEATERS AS THE ONLY MEANS TO HEAT YOUR HOME - Space heaters are not intended to be used as a substitute for your furnace, whether your furnace is a natural gas, oil or electric furnace. The proper use of an electric space heater is to add heat to a room in which adult residents are present.

*DO NOT ALLOW SMALL CHILDREN TO GO NEAR A SPACE HEATER - Babies and toddlers tend to crawl and walk toward space heaters because they are attracted to be glowing elements. Due to the tenderness of their skin, small children are more likely than adults to sustain second and third degree burns to their face.

*DO NOT LEAVE A SPACE HEATER UNATTENDED WHILE IT IS TURNED ON OR PLUGGED IN - Many house fires caused by space heaters occur after the person who plugged it in and turned it on leaves the room for an extended period of time or falls asleep.

*DO NOT PLACE THE SPACE HEATER CLOSE TO FLAMMABLE MATERIAL - Space heater fires often occur when items such as rugs, curtains, blankets and clothes are too close to the space heater. Most space heaters should not be within 3 feet of anything that can burn. The directions included with the space heater should give specific instructions on how and where to properly place the space heater.

*AVOID USING EXTENSION CORDS - Most electric space heaters have warning labels instructing the user not to use extension cords. If an extension cord is needed, it must be relatively new, in good condition and be rated by the Underwriters Laboratory at 16-gauge wire or thicker. Many house fires resulting from the use of a space heater occur when the extension cord ignites carpet, rugs or wood flooring.

*DO NOT USE KEROSENE OR OIL-BASED SPACE HEATERS INSIDE YOUR HOME - Every year, deaths and catastrophic injuries result from fires and carbon monoxide poisoning caused by kerosene or oil-based heaters that are placed inside homes, garages and other enclosed structures.

Over the years, the US Consumer Product Safety Commission has recalled dozens of heaters, both electric and oil-filled. One heater recall was as recent as July of this year.

Due to these tough economic times, there are many people having difficulty paying their heating bills. When their natural gas is disconnected or they run out of fuel oil, residents often use electric space heaters as the sole source for heating their home. BECAUSE THE RISK IS EXTREME, financially strained residents should contact the utility company before the source of their heating is disconnected. Most communities have local and state agencies, as well as charitable organizations, that can provide assistance.

In New York, before your utility company can shut off your service for nonpayment, or for any other reason other than an emergency, they must provide you with written notice of their intention to terminate. If the utility company knows that you receive some form of public assistance (including SSI), it must also notify the Human Resources Administration ("HRA") of the proposed termination, the amount of arrears and that payment has not been made. Notice to HRA must be sent three to five days before the proposed termination.

In a medical emergency or if a tenant has a life-threatening medical condition, special protections and rules apply before utilities can be shut off. Likeise if the resident is elderly, blind or disabled.

Many states have similar statutes to protect their citizens. Unfortunately, many people are unaware that assistance programs are available. To avoid the potentially tragic events that may occur with the use or misuse of space heaters, please share this information with your family, friends and neighbors.

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

Dwan Gonzalez, 44, was riding a Harley Davidson east on the Long Island Expressway in Rego Park., Queens County, when he was rear-ended by a Mercedes-Benz near Junction Blvd. at about 1 a.m., police said.

Gonzalez was thrown onto the hood of the white 2006 Mercedes Benz 350, rolled onto the windshield and tossed about 300 feet. Gonzalez died on the highway.

The Mercedes' driver, Shamel Campbell, 26, of Freeport, Long Island, fled the scene - but was later nabbed by cops near the Nassau County border, police said. He was allegedly driving with a suspended license.

Cops spotted Campbell's white Mercedes sedan - which had extensive front-end damage - at the
intersection of Francis Lewis Blvd. and 145th St. in Rosedale - more than 11 miles from the crash site, police said.

He tried to explain the damage by telling cops he hit a tree and a light pole, police sources said.

He was taken to the NYPD's 112th Precinct stationhouse, where he was booked for driving while intoxicated. His blood-alcohol level was 0.18, more than double the legal limit, the sources said.

He was also charged with leaving the scene of an accident and aggravated unlicensed operation,
police said.

---

In another accident just five minutes later, the driver of a 1991 Acura lost control of his vehicle on the Southern State Parkway near S. Conduit Ave. and struck a tree. The driver, a man in his 30s, was pronounced dead at the scene, police said.

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

A cinder-block wall collapsed at a construction site in Queens on Monday morning, January 9, 2011, killing 26-year-old construction worker Huberto Sanchez of Queens and seriously injuring one of his brothers and two other workers, according to city officials and a neighbor of the victim's family.

The city's Department of Buildings and the Queens district attorney were investigating the accident, the first construction death recorded in New York City this year, according to the department.

A neighbor, Persio Nunez, said that three of Mr. Sanchez's brothers also worked at the construction site, and that one of them, Miguel, was among the three seriously injured on Monday.

"They go every morning to work," said another neighbor, Rafael Hernandez, 52, and are out from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. He said that Huberto "works a lot; he doesn't go out except to work and to come home."

A spokesman for the Fire Department said that Huberto Sanchez had gone into cardiac arrest after the 9:30 a.m. accident, and the police said he was pronounced dead on the way to Elmhurst Hospital Center. The deceased accident victim was a married father of two, with a third child on the way.

The three other men sustained trauma and fractures, officials said. They were in serious but stable condition at Elmhurst Hospital Center on Monday afternoon, the police said.

The wall might have suddenly collapsed because of the way the concrete was added, said Eugene Corcoran, a deputy commissioner for enforcement at the Buildings Department. Mr. Corcoran said there could have been spaces in the concrete if the material had not been properly applied. That, he said, could have made the 65-foot-wide wall unstable.

The building has had six violations since June 2009, when its contractor, the H. Rock Corporation, received a permit for the site, according to Tony Sclafani, the chief spokesman for the Buildings Department. He said the violations, which included things like failing to post proper signage or failing to keep the sidewalk free of equipment, did not relate to the construction of the wall. A person who answered the phone at the company declined to comment.

The city issued a stop-work order at the site pending the investigations.

The site where the building is under construction is owned by Thomas J. Huang, a Queens developer. The property is managed by Queens & Van Loon Management Corp., based in Flushing, Queens, according to signs posted on the site.

The accident occurred as two workers were perched atop the cinder-block wall, which was 18 feet tall, at the site where a five-story building was under construction, officials for the Buildings Department said. Two other workers were on the ground beneath the scaffolding when the blocks patched with concrete began to collapse.

The two men atop the wall were able to ride the cascading momentum to the ground. But the two workers at the bottom of the wall were crushed between the onslaught of blocks and the scaffolding. It was there where one of the men went into cardiac arrest.

Mr. Sanchez and the three others injured worked for a subcontractor, he said.

"When the wall came down, two were on the top and they were able to ride the wall down, which probably saved their lives," Mr. Corcoran said.

Mr. Sclafani said the construction was in its initial stages, sitting amid a row of commercial buildings. This particular structure was intended for mixed use: commercial on the bottom, with the top four floors residential.

Last year there were four construction fatalities in New York City, and three in 2009. But over all, Mr. Sclafani said, the number of construction accidents declined 28 percent last year, to 157 from 218 in 2009.

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

WASHINGTON, D.C. - The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with the firm named below, today announced a voluntary recall of the following consumer product. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

Name of Product: Baby leg warmers and socks

Units: About 4,500

Distributor: BabyUnited LLC d/b/a BabyLegs of Seattle, Wash.

Hazard: The leg warmers and socks have a heart appliqué that can detach, posing a choking hazard to small children.

Incidents/Injuries: The firm has received one report of an infant choking on the heart-shaped appliqué. Her mother was able to dislodge the appliqué from her throat. No medical attention was required.

Description: This recall involves only those BabyLegs brand leg warmers, ankle-high socks and knee-high socks adorned with a heart-shape appliqué. The recalled products are pink, white or purple cable knit socks and leg warmers.

Sold at: www.babylegs.com and independent retailers from August 2010 to November 2010 for about $11 per pair.

Manufactured in: China

Remedy: Consumers should immediately take the recalled socks and leg warmers away from children. Consumers can remove and discard the heart appliqué to eliminate the hazard or contact BabyLegs to receive a full refund or a coupon to be redeemed on the BabyLegs website.

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

Driving on the highways lately I've been seeing road signs about a "move over" law. I had no idea what that was about.

So here goes.

In the United States, the move over laws are intended to protect emergency responders working along the side of a road or highway. To prevent passing cars from striking firefighters, ambulance personnel and police, move over laws require drivers, upon noticing emergency vehicles with sirens or flashing lights, to move away from the vehicle by one lane, or if that is not possible, to slow down by 20 mph below the posted speed limit.

If this sounds like something you never learned to pass your New York driver's license written test, that's because it wasn't on your driver's license test. Until the first of this year (2011), New York was one of the last couple of states to not have a move over law on the books.

Last summer New York Governor Paterson signed into the law the "Ambrose-Searles Move Over Act," which took effect on January 1, 2011. The law is named after two police officers - New York State Trooper Robert Ambrose and Onondaga County Deputy Sheriff Glenn M. Searles - who were killed when their patrols cars were stopped on the side of the road.

The first part of the law, which adds a new Section 1144-a to New York State's Vehicle and Traffic Law, says:

　§ 1144-a. Operation of vehicles when approaching a parked, stopped or standing authorized emergency vehicle

Every operator of a motor vehicle shall exercise due care to avoid colliding with an authorized emergency vehicle which is parked, stopped or standing on the shoulder or any portion of such highway and such authorized emergency vehicle is displaying one or more red or combination red and white lights . . . . For operators of motor vehicles on parkways or controlled access highways, such due care shall include, but not be limited to, moving from a lane which contains or is immediately adjacent to the shoulder where such authorized emergency vehicle displaying one or more red or combination red and white lights . . . is parked, stopped or standing to another lane. . . .

Attention New York drivers: when you see flashing lights on the side of the road, move over or slow down. And know that a violation of the law is punishable by a fine of up to $275 along with two points on your driver's license record.

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

Two Staten Island brothers -- one a Marine -- were killed in a horrific crash in the Catskills shortly after they shared a meal with their family, sources and relatives said.

Paul Campione III, 38, was driving his 2001 Subaru Forester along a winding road in Roxbury at around 10:30 p.m., on Thursday January 6, 2011,with his brother, Christopher, 33, when the car careened off a cliff and landed in a pond where it sank, according to State Police.

The men, both married dads, had been building a cabin with their father and younger brother and had just shared a tragic last meal together in nearby Jewett.

"I just thank God my youngest son wasn't with them," said their devastated mother, Ingrid.

After dinner, her youngest son, Eric, left with his dad, Paul Jr., in a separate car to stay at a motel.

Because the lodging didn't take pets, Paul III and Christopher went to drop off their dog at a friend's house where they were staying.

"They dropped off the dog and that's when it happened," Ingrid said.

Christopher and Paul III were pulled from the pond and taken to Magaretville Hospital where they died. It wasn't until a police officer knocked on a relative's door in Staten Island that the family got the news of the horrific crash.

The brothers were members of the plumbers union Local 1 and worked in the family plumbing, heating and air-conditioning business that has been a Staten Island staple for decades.

Christopher, who had a young son, was in the process of getting his plumber's license and served as a sergeant in the Marines. His mother said he was "Paulie's right-hand man."

Paul III had three daughters -- ages 6, 7, and 8.

Investigators were still trying to determine the cause of the crash, but said that the car ran off the road and sank in a small pond below.

State Police Capt. James Barnes told The Associated Press that speed may have been a factor.

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

Please, please dial "311" if you don't have heat. Buy an electric blanket. Stay with friends or family. But don't try to heat your home with an open oven or burning stove, which are designed for cooking food.

Claudette Rivera, age 72, tried to stay warm in her apartment by running her oven with the oven door open and/or the stove burners on. Her clothing caught fire at about noon on Friday, January 6, 2011 in her apartment at 124 Ludlow Street, in Manhattan's Lower East Side, and the fire engulfed her and her apartment and spread next door.

While the fire was contained to those two apartments, tenants of the other 18 units in the building said the smoke was very heavy in the hallways and they rushed outside.

Neighbor Frances Ayers, 49, tried bravely to save as screams and smoke filled the hallways of 124 Ludlow St. at 11:18 a.m.

"She was covered in flames. I tried to put [it] out," said Ayers, who required treatment for minor burns and smoke inhalation at New York Hospital.

"It was rough," said neighbor Adrian Cutner. "My lungs aren't great. It was really thick. I encountered a lot of dense smoke as I tried to exit the building myself."

"There was black smoke everywhere," said neighbor Vanessa Kark, a makeup artist.

Later, a former worker at the building's ground-level store remembered Rivera as the type of neighbor who "always thought about everyone else."

Evan Green, 28, who lives on the third floor, said he had tried to reach the woman but was beaten back by dense smoke.

"The lady was screaming a bunch, and the fire alarms were going off," he said. "I ran down the hallway to try and see if she was all right, but there was too much smoke"

Rivera, who had lived in the building for some 50 years, was suffering from a lack of heat in the building along with her fellow tenants.

One tenant received minor injuries while escaping from the building. All tenants should be allowed to return home.

Ms. Rivera, who needed a walker to get around, had trouble navigating the flight of stairs to her apartment, especially if she was returning from the grocery store. She was pronounced dead at the scene.

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

I've been toying with the political philosophy of "libertarianism" for a while now, and I have some thoughts to share. Simply put, libertarianism is the advocacy of individual liberty, especially freedom of thought and action. Libertarians can do as they please, so long as they don't injure others. So drug addiction is o.k. Hiring prostitutes is o.k. Gambling is o.k. And so forth.

David Boaz, libertarian writer and vice president of the Cato Institute, writes that, "Libertarianism is the view that each person has the right to live his life in any way he chooses so long as he respects the equal rights of others" and that, "Libertarians defend each person's right to life, liberty, and property--rights that people have naturally, before governments are created."　

The US Libertarian Party is the third largest political party in the United States (as of 2008, 235,500 registered voters), and asserts the following to be core beliefs of Libertarianism:

Libertarians support maximum liberty in both personal and economic matters. They advocate a much smaller government; one that is limited to protecting individuals from coercion and violence. Libertarians tend to embrace individual responsibility, oppose government bureaucracy and taxes, promote private charity, tolerate diverse lifestyles, support the free market, and defend civil liberties.

Some minarchists believe a minimal state would be preferable, while more anarchist libertarians hold the belief that society functioning without any recognized government is preferable.

The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy describes the minimal state as providing only law enforcement, a judicial assembly, and armed forces; also described is the right-libertarian view called anarcho-capitalism which holds that government can be completely abolished because private companies working for profit should provide the court systems, military, and police forces; alternatively, some of the more anarchist libertarians subscribe to libertarian socialism, which seeks the elimination of government with a view on property rights that differs from anarcho-capitalism.

Simply put, there are many "flavors" of libertarianism.

Reason magazine, a libertarian-leaning publication, recently published an article by Radley Balko taking an unusual point of view, that is worthy of discussion and thought.

The article opposes current laws against "driving while intoxicated" and suggests creating a new criminal offense: "driving while ability impaired." The objection to the driving while intoxicated charge is that a driver can't be arrested if his or her blood-alcohol content (BAC) is below 0.08 percent unless there's additional evidence of impairment. Why might this be a problem?

People react to alcohol differently. For many people one drink may well be too many. Experienced drinkers, by contrast, can function relatively normally with a BAC at or above the legal limit. A person's impairment may also depend on variables such as the medications he is taking and the amount of sleep he got the night before.

The core of the author's libertarian-type argument is this: the legal definition of intoxication highlights the absurdity of drawing an arbitrary, Breathalyzer-based line between sobriety and criminal intoxication. But the right solution is not to push the artificial line back farther. Instead we should get rid of it entirely by repealing drunk driving laws.

Around the year 2000 the Federal government leaned on the states to all pass laws that find a driver is "drunk" when he or she has a blood alcohol level of 0.08 or more.

At the time, the average blood alcohol level in alcohol-related fatal accidents was 0.17. Two-thirds of such accidents involved drivers with a blood alcohol level of 0.14 or higher.

A national study showed that the 0.08 standard did not decrease alcohol-related traffic fatalities.

The author claims that the problem is that most people with a BAC between 0.08 and 0.10 don't drive erratically enough to be noticed by police officers in patrol cars. So police began setting up roadblocks to catch them.

Author Balko then implies that setting up roadblocks is a waste of law enforcement resources, because our police should be on the move, scouring the roadways for persons driving erratically.

Like a good libertarian - who wants our cops to leave us alone - Balko calls police checkpoints "constitutionally dubious" and "revenue generators for local governments." He believes that this is so because checkpoint officers give lots of tickets for small violations and generate overtime pay for officers but catch few drunk drivers.

Balko is also riled by automatic license suspensions for drivers who refuse to take roadside breath tests. His non-libertarian reason: "Most manufacturers of breath test machines have refused to turn over their source code, meaning DWI defendants can't assess the machines' margin of error--a significant factor in a case where the difference between 0.80 and 0.79 for a first offense can mean $1,000 or more in fines, mandatory alcohol awareness classes, and loss of driving privileges for up to a year." Even more alarming are jurisdictions that allow cops to take blood at roadside for alcohol testing.

The article's other points:

*Drunk driving is not the threat but drinking while impaired is; we needn't demonize tho9se who have had, say, just one drink and then drive.

*Certain in-car distractions are even more dangerous than driving with a 0.08 blood alcohol level, such as eating, adjusting a radio or CD player, and having kids in the backseat.

*Regardless whether reckless driving is due to alcohol, lack of sleep, medication, texting or road rage, we should be punishing reckless driving more consistently.

*Increase all penalties for bad driving no matter the reason, especially in cases that result in injury or property damage.

Balko concludes: "The punishable act should be violating road rules or causing an accident, not the factors that led to those offenses." And that our laws, basically, demonstrate a prejudice against alcohol.

Comment: An interesting and radical suggestion. The problem is, blood alcohol level is easy to determine and we can stop a driver who drinks even before he or she drives dangerously. How can we prove a driver's lack of sleep? Or that he or she is chasing and cutting-off another car because of "road rage" or not paying attention because of eating in the car, or driving badly while applying make-up? For better or worse, drinking and driving is a proven killer, and while the article cherry-picks some interesting statistics, the fact is that drunk driving laws and Breathalyzer tests and such do work.

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

On Tuesday January 4, 2011 a Long Island teen was speeding in a BMW his parents bought him for Christmas when he crashed the car, killing himself and critically injuring his two passengers.

The sequence of events leading to the fatal crash in Westbury, New York, began when Francesco "Frankie" Posillico, age 17, ran a stop sign, bounced off a Chevrolet Cobalt and struck and broke a utility pole.

Amazingly, the driver of the other car, a 24-year-old woman from Levittown, suffered minor injuries and was treated and released from the hospital, Nassau University Medical Center.

Posillicpo was driving so fast that his car stopped only after hitting a tree 150 feet from the initial crash site.

Posillico, whose father owns a landscaping business, was not wearing a seatbelt and was tossed from the BMW. He was later pronounced dead at Nassau University Medical Center.

Rear-seat passenger Joseph Scaperrotta, 16, was in critical condition at Nassau University Medical Center with a fractured spine and leg.

Front-seat passenger Daniel Roche, 16, was in a medically-induced coma, also with spinal and other injuries, and listed in critical condition at Winthrop University Hospital.

The devastating crash in Westbury came just days after who was in two accidents a month after getting his license in August, picked out the 2006 blue BMW 330ci with his father, Giuseppe.

"It appears this was a matter of high speed and inexperience. It was a horrific scene," Nassau County Detective Lt. Ray Cote said, adding there was no evidence of alcohol or drugs.

Posillico had been a member of the Westbury Fire Department's Explorers program for teens since he was 14, and planned on becoming a volunteer firefighter as soon as he turned 18, said First Assistant Fire Chief Douglas Ingram.

All three teenagers had connections to the firehouse: Scaperrotta was also an Explorer. His father, a Westbury firefighter, responded to the crash scene without knowing his son was in the wreckage.

And Roche is a cousin of the department's fire chief, Pat Cody.

Ingram described responding to the accident scene Tuesday evening and urging emergency officials to quickly confirm that the car was, in fact, registered to Posillico.

"Then one of the mothers came up and said, 'I think Joey was in the car,' " he said, shaking his head. "It was a long night."

"I can tell you that it was a horrific scene," said Det. Lt. Raymond Cote.

Police also said that Posillico, who earned a driver's license last summer, had been the driver in two other crashes in September, events that investigators blamed on weather conditions and inexperience. He was not cited in those accidents.

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

A 9-month-old boy was in critical condition after a livery cab struck a double-parked beige Toyota Tundra and rebounded into him, his twin brother and their mom in Brooklyn on Sunday, police and witnesses said.

The mother, identified by friends as Patricia Machuca, 21, was visiting from Baltimore with her husband, Miguel, and their 9-month-old twins, Gustavo and Daniel. Machuca and the twins were preparing to get into a friend's parked Toyota Tundra pickup truck for the drive back to Baltimore, witnesses said, when disaster struck.

Patricia Mechuca, 21, was pushing a stroller with her sons, Gustavo and Daniel, on Fourth Avenue near 44th Street in Sunset Park at around 1:15 p.m. when the livery cab, a Ford Crown Victoria traveling south on Fourth Ave., lost control.

"The babies were on the ground," said family friend Ismael Remigio, 26, the owner of the Toyota. "It was scary."

All of the injured were taken to Lutheran Medical Center. Both babies suffered head injuries. One was in critical condition last night, and the other in stable condition. Their mother was in stable condition with cuts and bruises.

"I thought she was dead," Remigio said of Machuca. "She was bleeding from her nose, her mouth, her neck. She was unconscious."

"She's a nice person and a good mother," Remigio added."We were about to leave. I went upstairs and two minutes later, I heard the crash," he said.

The livery driver, Gregorio Patino, 57, was hospitalized with chest pains in stable condition. He was charged with aggravated unlicensed operation of a vehicle (driving without a license), reckless driving and imprudent speed, cops said. He passed a Breathalyzer test.

The cabbie's three passengers, a 40-year-old woman and two boys, 8 and 16, were in stable condition.

Witness Carlos Barera, 25, said the cab sideswiped his vehicle before hitting the double-parked minivan. The cab was speeding, Barera and other witnesses said.

"He was driving like crazy," said Barera. "I couldn't believe it. Everything happened so fast."　

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

Bronx death - struck by two cars while running from a mugging

A Bronx teenager was killed when he was chased onto the Bruckner Expressway and into the path of two cars after a group of guys jumped him, family members said.

Malik Jenkins, 18, died about 10:45p.m. Wednesday December 29, 2010 when he ran into the busy eastbound lanes of the Bronx thoroughfare near Beach Ave. and was mowed down by a Toyota Prius and a BMW, cops said.

As the driver pulled over, an eastbound BMW struck the pedestrian a second time. The driver of the BMW also stopped and remained on the scene.

Jenkins' parents, Tonya and Thomas Jenkins, said their son's friend told them they were ambushed by a group of young men when they went to meet some girls in the Bronx, and Malik ran onto the expressway to avoid a beatdown.

The parents said cops told them they had not ruled out homicide charges. The medical examiner will perform an autopsy today.

"I'm not going to see my son come home anymore," the heartbroken mother, a Harlem Hospital nurse, told the Daily News.

"That's the hardest part," Thomas Jenkins, 56, a truck driver, added. "At the end of the day, I'll never see my son again."

The parents suspect their son and his friend were lured into a trap by some girls, who asked them to come to a Bronx house and promised to pay their cab fare.

The friend told cops that when they arrived at the house, they were attacked by a group of young men, prompting Jenkins to bolt for the nearby expressway, the family said.

Cops said the driver of the Toyota, a 71-year-old woman, immediately stopped after hitting Jenkins.

Before she could get out of her car, Jenkins was struck by the BMW, driven by a 50-year-old man, police said.

Tonya Jenkins, 50, said she feared the worst when cops called her about 1 a.m. yesterday.
"Officers don't come and get you to bring you to the hospital in the middle of the night if everything is okay," she said. "I knew something was wrong when they didn't let me out of the car."

Malik Jenkins was a senior at Walton High School in the Bronx.

---

Bronx death - struck while trying to wave off traffic

A long holiday celebration turned to tragedy for the family of a Bronx grandmother who was struck and killed as she tried to wave traffic away from her car after a highway spinout, her grief-torn daughter said yesterday.

Marcia Clarke-Hinton, 50, had just come from visiting her son in California -- scoring a last-minute flight home after days of snow delays -- and was looking forward to spending New Year's Eve with family when she was killed on the Hutchinson River Parkway in front of her horrified daughter.

Yinka McAlpine-Campbell, 24, said she had picked her mom up at Kennedy Airport and was headed to her Pelham Gardens home when their Nissan Pathfinder hit ice and spun out, coming to rest in a snowbank just before 9:40 p.m. Thursday December 30, 2010.

The SUV wound up facing southbound on the northbound Hutch, according to cops.

"We weren't going fast, there was a lot of ice and the road was impossible," a sobbing McAlpine-Campbell told The Post.

She said her mom got out of the car -- and asked her daughter to get out, too -- because she was afraid someone would hit them.

But McAlpine-Campbell said she stayed in the car, turning on the hazard lights and honking the horn as she tried to dislodge the car.

Clarke-Hinton then climbed a snowbank in front of the SUV, trying "to tell other cars to go around," her daughter said.

Suddenly, she took a step forward.

"It's like she saw that car coming and tried to save me," McAlpine-Campbell said.

The car, driven by Bronx resident John Cirola, 52, slammed into the grandmother.

"The car . . . hit her and she flew up as high as the wall," her daughter said.

The force sent Clarke-Hinton flying over the SUV; Cirola's car then struck the Pathfinder.

"The airbag went off, [and] then I was looking for my mom," McAlpine-Campbell recounted through tears. "Her face was split open. I tried to hug her, and she had no pulse. I saw her die."

Police said Cirola remained at the scene, and no criminality is suspected. No tickets were issued.