Jeffery Samel & Partners

Motor Vehicle

JEFFREY SAMEL & PARTNERS successfully defends clients in motor vehicle accident cases involving such garden-variety issues as a question of lights, stop sign cases, left-turn cases, and lane changes. We also have great success in cases involving more difficult issues, such as those presented by hit-in-the-rear accidents and sudden stops. We have obtained dismissals of actions by summary judgment or by defense verdicts, utilizing the "serious injury" requirement of the No-Fault Law and arguments regarding causation. Finally, we also represent insurance carriers in loss-transfer matters, uninsured and underinsured motorist claims, and claims made under the Personal Injury Protection provisions of motor vehicle insurance policies, by making motions for a stay or dismissal, conducting Examinations Under Oath, and participating in Arbitrations, Bench Trials, and Framed Issue Hearings.

Trial Successes

Glassberg v. Philco Carting Corp. [Supreme New York] Defense Verdict Plaintiff was a 50-year-old freelance computer consultant who was riding his bicycle in lower Manhattan when he was struck by one of the trucks owned by our client’s carting company. The bicyclist claimed that our client’s truck overtook and ran him over from the rear. The accident resulted in the amputation of the plaintiff’s lower left leg, and required a lengthily period of rehabilitation and instruction in the use an artificial limb. The plaintiff steadfastly maintained a settlement demand of $6 million and turned down the carrier’s $1 million offer. However, the jury returned a defense verdict after deliberating approximately 45 minutes, upon the proof we provided that the accident occurred when the plaintiff suddenly cut in front of our client’s truck while attempting to veer around a parked car in his path. (Michael Pomposello)

Hilton v. Independent Coach Corp. [Supreme Nassau] Defense Verdict Decedent and his wife were power-walking on a suburban street in the opposite direction of our client’s school bus. After the bus passed the couple, the decedent was found lying on the ground, with his head having been crushed by the rear tires. Plaintiff claimed that the incident must have occurred when the bus sideswiped the decedent as he was walking behind his wife. We convinced the jury, however, that the decedent’s prior history of epileptic seizures was the more likely cause of this unfortunate incident. (Jeffrey Samel)

Cantos v. Pierce Coach Lines [Supreme Nassau] Defense Verdict Plaintiff, a six-year-old school child, was struck and seriously injured by co-defendant’s vehicle after the child had exited from our client’s school bus. Plaintiff asserted that the school bus driver negligently stopped the bus across the street from the designated stop, thus requiring the child to cross the street, and failed to provide the child with a safe place to alight by pulling too far over to the side of the road, thereby allowing the other vehicle to pass. We convinced the jury that the school bus driver had not acted negligently, and that the sole proximate cause of the accident was co-defendant’s unlawful failure to halt when faced with a stopped school bus discharging its young passengers. (Jeffrey Samel)

Pall v. Arthur Brundage, Inc. [Supreme Kings] Defense Verdict Plaintiff was a pedestrian in the crosswalk of a busy intersection in midtown Manhattan, when she was run over by the front wheels of our client’s bus that was making a left turn. Plaintiff claimed that she was crossing the street with a green traffic signal in her favor, while the bus operator, who was facing the same direction, claimed to be making the left-hand turn with a green arrow in his favor. Plaintiff suffered crush injuries and degloving to her feet, and steadfastly maintained a seven-figure settlement demand. We convinced the jury that the sole proximate cause of the incident was the plaintiff’s failure to see the bus as it turned in front of her, and that the driver was driving appropriately with a green traffic arrow in his favor. (Jeffrey Samel)

Siena v. Dattco, Inc.[Supreme New York] Defense Verdict Plaintiff, a school teacher in Connecticut, had traveled to the American Museum of Natural History in Manhattan with other teachers and several classes on our client’s buses. She claimed that after boarding the bus for the return trip home, the bus driver pulled away while she was still standing to count the number of children. She alleged that the bus came to a sudden stop, for no apparent reason, violently throwing her to the floor. Plaintiff claimed to have suffered a traumatic brain injury, visual and hearing disturbances, vertigo, and occasional blackouts. At trial, we convinced the jury that the bus operator was forced to come to a sudden stop when an ambulance entered the intersection against a red traffic light, crossing in front of the bus. The jury rendered a defense verdict on the basis of the “emergency” doctrine. (Jeffrey Samel)

Galvan v. Dattco, Inc. [Civil New York] Defense Verdict Plaintiff claimed to have been struck in the rear by our client’s tour bus as he was attempting to make a right-hand turn in midtown Manhattan. The bus operator testified that the vehicle ahead of the plaintiff, also making a right-hand turn, suddenly stopped to allow pedestrians to cross, causing the plaintiff to strike that vehicle prior to the bus coming into contact with the rear of the plaintiff’s vehicle. Plaintiff alleged to have suffered a traumatic brain injury, and herniated cervical and lumbar discs. He steadfastly maintained a settlement demand of $500,000. At trial, we convinced the jury that the striking of the plaintiff’s vehicle in the rear by our client’s bus was not a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s claimed injuries, since he had already struck the vehicle ahead of him, which resulted in his head coming into contact with the rearview mirror in his car. The jury rendered a defense verdict on the basis of their finding that plaintiff had not sustained a causally related “serious injury” in this hit-in-the-rear accident. (Jeffrey Samel)

Maida v. Cornhusker Motor Lines [Supreme Rockland] Defense Verdict Plaintiff claimed that she had stopped her vehicle at a red light at an intersection in Clarkstown, New York, when she was rear-ended by our client’s truck. Plaintiff claimed that she suffered a traumatic brain injury, herniated and bulging discs throughout her cervical column, and the onset of debilitating RSD in her left hand. She demanded a seven-figure settlement. With the client’s permission, we conceded liability after the driver confirmed the hit-in-the-rear accident. However, at trial, we successfully convinced the jury that the plaintiff’s allegedly debilitating conditions were pre-existing. The jury rendered a defense verdict under the Insurance Law, finding no causally-related "serious injury." (Gary Matano)

Moretti v. Wilford Sanon, MTA LI Bus [Supreme Nassau] Two Defense Verdicts This wrongful death suit arose out of a one-vehicle accident that occurred during a heavy snowstorm. Plaintiff was a passenger in an MTA vehicle that was providing him with mandatory alternate transportation for the disabled. The MTA van hit a snowbank, ran off the road, and struck a tree. The accident caused plaintiff to fall from his seat and sustain a fractured hip. He died in the hospital shortly after undergoing hip surgery. The jury delivered a unanimous defense verdict, agreeing with our argument that the unfortunate accident was not due to any negligence on the part of the van operator. The trial judge set aside the verdict as against the weight of the credible evidence, but on retrial, a different jury delivered a second defense verdict. The court then denied plaintiff’s motion to set aside the second defense verdict on the basis of the fact that two juries had now reached the same conclusion. (Robert Spevack)

Hernandez v. MTA Long Island Bus [Supreme Nassau] Defense Verdict Plaintiff was crossing a busy street in Nassau County in front of the stopped bus from which he had just exited when he was struck by a passing bus. Plaintiff claimed that the driver of the bus that struck him should have proceeded more carefully, because bus operators were all aware that passengers regularly cross the street at that point to transfer from one bus to another. The jury returned a verdict in favor of our client, agreeing with our argument that the bus operator had no duty to anticipate that a passenger would illegally cross the street in mid-block to transfer between buses, and that he did not have sufficient time to brake after seeing plaintiff emerge from the front of the stopped bus. (Kevin Bigelow)

Galarza v. Crown Container Co. Inc. [Supreme Queens] Defense Verdict Plaintiff alleged that he was attempting to cross a street and was run over by our client’s garbage truck, as it rolled to a stop at the intersection. Plaintiff also claimed that as a result of the subject accident, he sustained a serious crush injury to his foot. The truck driver denied any contact with plaintiff at all, and testified that he saw plaintiff already limping across the street in front of his stopped truck. While plaintiff was treated for injuries to his foot, we convinced the jury that such injuries would have been far worse if plaintiff had actually been run over by a garbage truck, and that the injury must have occurred shortly before the truck arrived at the scene. (Gail Mota)

Leonard v. NYCTA [Supreme Richmond] Defense Verdict Plaintiff claimed that a bus struck her vehicle in the rear at an intersection in Richmond County. The bus operator claimed that the incident actually occurred when the plaintiff attempted to change lanes in front of the bus, causing contact between the front portion of the bus and the rear portion of the plaintiff’s vehicle. We convinced the jury that the bus operator's version of events was the true version, and that the plaintiff's action in attempting to make an unsafe lane change was the sole proximate cause of the accident. (Gail Mota)

Appellate Decisions

Isola v. Independent Coach Corp. 38 A.D. 3d 843, 832 N.Y.S.2d 641 (2d Dept. 2007), leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals, denied, 9 NY 3d 802 (2007) The infant plaintiff was discharged by our client’s school bus with three other children at a regularly designated bus stop. Plaintiff chose not to cross the street to go to his home, but instead, remained on the same side of the street where he had alighted, congregating with the other children. As the bus pulled away, the child, who was engaged in horseplay, fell backward and stumbled onto the street, where his foot was run over by the bus as it pulled away. Plaintiffs alleged that in so doing, the bus operator had violated a statute that required him to advise the school children to cross the street in front of the stopped school bus, and that such violation gave rise to strict liability for the accident that followed. We moved for summary judgment on behalf of our client, arguing that the bus operator did not violate the statute, and that in any case, the sole proximate cause of the incident was that the infant plaintiff lost his balance while engaged in horseplay, causing him to fall backward into the moving bus, which was an intervening, unforeseeable event. The lower court denied our motion, but on appeal, the Appellate Division reversed, finding no causal connection between the alleged violation of the statute and the incident at issue. The Court of Appeals refused to grant leave. (David Samel)

Namisnak v. Martin, 244 AD2d 258, 664 N.Y.S.2d 435 (1st Dept. 1997) This motor vehicle accident case involved one death and serious injuries to two others that occurred when plaintiffs’ host vehicle struck our client’s tractor-trailer as plaintiffs’ vehicle exited a highway. The truck was going straight ahead in the right-hand lane of a major roadway. Plaintiffs contended that the accident was due, at least in part, to the excessive speed of the tractor-trailer. The lower court denied our motion for summary judgment, but the Appellate Division unanimously reversed, based upon the proof we presented that established that the speed of the truck was not a competent producing cause of the accident. The sole proximate cause of the accident was the plaintiffs’ host driver exiting the highway and then striking the side of the passing truck, failing to yield the right-of-way. The Appellate Division also agreed with our argument that an operator of a vehicle, who has the right-of-way, is entitled to anticipate that other vehicles will obey the traffic laws that require them to yield, and that the truck operator did not have a duty to anticipate that the plaintiffs’ host driver would ignore a stop sign. (David Samel)

Summary Judgment & Dispositive Motions

Testa v. Rywalt [Supreme Nassau] Plaintiff was a pedestrian struck by an automobile being driven by the co-defendant. The co-defendant’s vehicle had failed to yield at an intersection and collided with our client’s pizza delivery vehicle. As a result of the collision between the two vehicles, the co-defendant’s vehicle spun around, mounted a sidewalk, and struck the pedestrian plaintiff. We obtained summary judgment on behalf of our client, arguing that the co-defendant's proven failure to yield was the sole proximate cause of the accident, and that there was no proof of any negligence on the part of our client’s delivery driver, who was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. (Judah Z. Cohen)