Jeffrey Samel & Partners

Municipal Liability

JEFFREY SAMEL & PARTNERS has successfully represented the City of New York, the New York City Transit Authority, Long Island Bus, MTA Bus, and various local school boards, in thousands of cases. We are regularly assigned such representation within 90 days of an occurrence, upon the service of a Notice of Intention to Claim. We conduct thorough statutory hearings and vigorously defend our municipal clients through the entire litigation process in cases involving premises accidents, motor vehicle accidents, roadway and sidewalk design or defect claims, toxic torts, inadequate supervision of school children, and police misconduct. Our success is based in part upon our knowledge of the unique statutory and case law requirements governing the commencement and prosecution of lawsuits against a municipality, by which we obtain dismissals for failure to comply with statutory conditions precedent to such suits. We have also conducted literally thousands of statutory hearings in order to provide in-house counsel with thorough examinations of claimants prior to the commencement of litigation.

Trial Successes

Arden v. NYCTA [Supreme New York] Trial Dismissal Plaintiff alleged she tripped and fell over a defective emergency subway hatch cover in the sidewalk on Lexington Avenue in midtown Manhattan. Plaintiff fractured her right elbow and suffered torn ligaments to the right shoulder. After plaintiff rested her case, we moved to dismiss for failing to prove the essential element of notice of the defective hatch door. The trial court agreed with our contention that there was no proof of actual or constructive notice, and that plaintiff could not rely upon the legal doctrine of res ipsa loquitor, thereby dismissing plaintiff’s complaint. (Michael Pomposello)

Morris v. MABSTOA & NYCTA [Supreme New York] Defense Verdict Plaintiff claimed that as she was exiting a NYCTA bus on Broadway in Manhattan, she stepped directly into a hole in the roadway, causing her foot to twist. Plaintiff suffered a fractured ankle. We successfully argued to the jury that the plaintiff had not proven that the bus operator had failed in his duty to provide her with a reasonably safe place to alight. (Michael Pomposello)

Gueye v. NYCTA [Supreme New York] Defense Verdict Plaintiff was riding an escalator in the 34th Street 6th Avenue Subway Station in Manhattan, and claimed that the escalator suddenly stopped, causing her to fall. Plaintiff sustained a left ankle tendon tear, requiring a surgical repair. The NYCTA and Police Aided accident reports confirmed the accident details. Plaintiff relied at trial upon the legal doctrine of res ipsa loquitor, and also upon documentary proof that there had been prior malfunctions in this escalator during the 12- month period before this accident. We successfully argued to the jury that the escalator maintenance records actually revealed that the escalator was properly maintained and that the previous malfunctions were unrelated to the unforeseen malfunction that caused the escalator to stop suddenly while plaintiff was a passenger. The jury deliberated only 20 minutes before rendering a Defense Verdict. (Michael Pomposello)

Appellate Decisions

Groves v. New York City Transit Auth. 44 A.D.3d 856, 843 N.Y.S.2d 452 (2d Dept. 2007) Plaintiff moved to file a late notice of claim, alleging he had been assaulted by a Transit Authority bus operator. Plaintiff argued that the Transit Authority already had knowledge of the facts, from an incident report filled out by the bus operator on the day of the incident. However, we countered that the bus operator’s report made no mention of the alleged assault underlying the claim. We also attacked as insufficient, the plaintiff’s excuses for the delay; that he was unaware of the statutory time limit and that a prior attorney had declined to take his case. Finally, we argued that the delay prejudiced the Transit Authority by depriving it of the opportunity to conduct a timely investigation. The Appellate Division agreed with all of our arguments and dismissed the complaint. (David Samel)

Cappadonna v. New York City Transit Auth. 187 A.D.2d 691, 590 N.Y.S.2d 274, 275 (2d Dept. 1992) Plaintiff allegedly slipped on a slippery substance on a subway platform. At trial, she alleged for the first time that the slippery substance was oil that leaked from a nearby escalator. We obtained a trial order of dismissal, based upon the failure of the notice of claim to mention an allegedly defective escalator mechanism causing the claimed condition, thereby depriving the Transit Authority of an opportunity to conduct a timely investigation. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's granting of a trial order of dismissal. (Jeffrey Samel/David Samel)

Stella v. New York City Transit Auth. 240 A.D.2d 167, 657 N.Y.S.2d 702, 703 (1st Dept. 1997) Plaintiff, a New York City Police Officer, sued the Transit Authority under General Municipal Law §205-e, arguing that he was injured as a result of the TA’s violation of a statute or ordinance. We moved to dismiss the complaint, noting that the statute requires that the officer “set forth those facts” showing a causal relationship between Transit’s violations and his accident. We argued that the various statutes and regulations cited by plaintiff were either inapplicable or were not causally related to the plaintiff’s injuries. We also argued that the Authority’s own rules and regulations cannot serve as the required statute or ordinance. Both the motion court and the Appellate Division agreed with our arguments, and dismissed the complaint. (David Samel)

Katzman v. New York City Transit Auth. 174 A.D.2d 607, 571 N.Y.S.2d 93 (2d Dept. 1991) Plaintiff was assaulted on a Transit Authority bus, and commenced suit, claiming that the bus driver had failed to intervene. We moved for summary judgment on the ground that there existed no “special relationship” between the driver and the plaintiff, and that even if there was, the driver did not breach any obligation to the plaintiff. The motion court granted our motion and dismissed the complaint, and on plaintiff’s appeal, the dismissal was affirmed. (David Samel)

Santiago v. New York City Housing Auth. 220 A.D.2d 655, 633 N.Y.S.2d 69 (2d Dept.1995) Plaintiff allegedly slipped on a walkway in a Housing Authority project. She filed a timely notice of claim, but we argued that it insufficiently described the location and the cause of her fall, and that the Housing Authority was thereby deprived of the opportunity to conduct a timely investigation. The lower court denied our motion, but the Appellate Division reversed and dismissed the claim. (David Samel)

Duke v. New York City Housing Auth. 237 A.D.2d 520, 656 N.Y.S.2d 885 (2d Dept. 1997) Plaintiff did not timely serve a notice of claim within 90 days of the accident, and moved for permission to serve a late notice of claim. The motion court granted plaintiff’s motion, but on appeal, the Appellate Division reversed and dismissed the claim, agreeing with our argument that the plaintiff had not given a reasonable excuse for failing to serve his notice of claim in a timely fashion. (David Samel)