News

Zigelboym v. Williams

06/22/05

In a noteworthy recent case, the Supreme Court in Brooklyn held in favor of Lozner & Mastropietro’s client, ruling that the New York City Transit Authority can not assert a statue of limitations defense when its failure to indicate on its vehicles that NYCTA is the real owner, constituted a trap for the unwary.

Winning an important victory for its client, Lozner & Mastropietro’s significant efforts should lead to a change in public policy in New York City:  forcing NYCTA to indicate its ownership on its vehicles.

Lozner & Mastropietro’s client was seriously injured when she was struck by a motor vehicle registered to defendant Maggie’s Paratransit Corp. while crossing a busy Brooklyn intersection. After conducting a thorough investigation, Lozner & Mastropietro promptly sued Maggie’s to recover for their client’s injuries. However, the information that the NYCTA was also the owner of the vehicle was hidden, and only after the statute of limitations expired, did that information become available.

The personal injury law firm of Lozner & Mastropietro argued on their client’s behalf that the NYCTA could not take advantage of the shortened statute of limitations, where they have misled the public into believing that they did not own the vehicle. The Court agreed, granting Lozner & Mastropietro’s client the right to sue the NYCTA, in addition to Maggie’s, for her serious injuries.

Gonzalez v. Schupak

06/06/05

Lozner & Mastropietro recently triumphed in an appeal the personal injury law firm brought on behalf of their client, a man injured in a car accident in Brooklyn.

In a rare reversal, the Appellate Division, Second Department vacated the jury’s verdict, and instead entered a verdict in favor of Lozner & Mastropietro’s client.

In 2003, the client was driving along 5^th Avenue in Brooklyn, when he hit the defendant’s car at the intersection of 5^th Avenue and 2^nd Street. The law firm of Lozner & Mastropietro clearly showed the jury during the trial that their client was not responsible for the accident, as the defendant did not stop at the stop sign. The jury, however, ruled in favor of the defendant.

This did not deter the resolute legal team at Lozner & Mastropietro. Claiming the jury verdict was unlawful and not based on evidence presented to the court, Lozner & Mastropietro filed an appeal on their client’s behalf. Citing no evidence of the plaintiff’s fault in the accident, the Appellate Court agreed with Lozner & Mastropietro’s argument that the jury verdict against their client was incorrect. But instead of just throwing out the jury ruling, the Court of Appeals went one rare step forward – entering a verdict for the client and handing the first-class, Brooklyn-based personal injury law firm an important win.

New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance Co. v. Dukes

01/31/05

After an insurance company tried to avoid its obligation to cover their insured’s accident, the personal injury law firm of Lozner & Mastropietro sued the insurance company and won.

Lozner & Mastropietro’s client was a pedestrian struck by an automobile. After filing a claim against the automobile’s insurance company, he was denied coverage because the insurance company claimed that the vehicle in question was either stolen or being used without permission at the time of the accident.

After significant discovery, the persistent attorneys at Lozner & Mastropietro presented evidence to the court that the insurance company failed to prove the vehicle was stolen. The Supreme Court in Brooklyn agreed, stating that the insurance company was obligated to defend and indemnify its insured in connection with the accident.

Unsatisfied with the outcome, the insurance company, New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance Company, appealed the Supreme Court’s ruling. 

Yet, the higher court, the Appellate Division, Second Department, also agreed with Lozner & Mastropietro’s argument and evidence. Concluding there was insufficient evidence to establish that the negligent vehicle was stolen, the Appellate Court ordered the insurance company to cover the loss, handing Lozner & Mastropietro and their client an important win.