While many people believe that a personal injury case involves a trial and a verdict, in fact most cases typically are resolved in out-of-court settlements. On the other hand, many personal injury lawsuits that do go to trial and result in a verdict are appealed by the losing side. The attorneys at Jaroslawicz & Jaros are experienced in handling appeals of personal injury case verdicts they obtained and also write and argue all of their own appeals.
An appeal occurs when one of the parties to the initial lawsuit decides that they are unhappy with the verdict issued by the court or by a jury. In filing an appeal, the party is essentially asking a higher court to review the verdict of the lower court and overturn it if it finds that it was unfair in any way. Because an appeal can be based on a number of factors, it requires skillfully drafted paperwork, different from any that the parties may have relied upon during the prior trial. In some cases, an appeal will also require an argument before a panel of appellate judges.
A successful appeal requires the services of an attorney who has expertise in pursuing and arguing cases in the appellate courts. The attorneys at Jaroslawicz & Jaros have been handling personal injury cases and resulting appeals since the firm was founded in 1980. Our principal attorneys, David Jaroslawicz and Abraham Jaros, both have over 45 years of legal experience.
Our lawyers have extensive knowledge of the proceedings in all of the New York state courts, including those at the appellate level, and also represent clients at all federal court levels. David Jaroslawicz, of Jaroslawicz & Jaros, has even argued before our highest court, the United States Supreme Court, in protecting the rights of a UPS employee.
David Jaroslawicz wrote the brief and argued before the highest court in the state of New York, the New York Court of Appeals, in a case that helped define and develop the law. In the case of Flynn v. Manhattan & Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority, Court of Appeals of New York, 61 N.Y.2d 769; 461 N.E.2d 291; 473 N.Y.S.2d 154, the court found that the injured party had established a prima facie case of negligence against the bus owner in a personal injury action and that there was evidence from which the jury could have concluded that the bus owner was negligent in failing to equip the bus with a side mirror.
Abraham Jaros, of Jaroslawicz & Jaros, was successful in obtaining a settlement of $1.2 Million on behalf of a young lady who was injured by a tractor-trailer, in the case of Kruger v. Salem Leasing Corp., 90 CV 0049, United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York; December 30, 1991; Decided, January 14, 1992; Filed. The court found that summary judgment was precluded in a personal injury action because a genuine issue was raised as to whether the tractor-trailer driver acted reasonably when he drove the tractor-trailer, knowing that the throttle spring had not been replaced.
The firm of Jaroslawicz & Jaros was one of the lead counsel in cases involving cranes that collapsed on construction sites in New York City, and wrote and argued the appeal before the higher court where the appellate court upheld Jaroslawicz & Jaros’ claim for its client’s emotional distress in the 51st Street crane collapse.
In a leading case which interpreted New York State’s Labor Law involving an injured construction worker’s rights to sue, the firm of Jaroslawicz & Jaros was successful in bringing a case for an injured worker under New York State Labor Law in a case where David Jaroslawicz of Jaroslawicz & Jaros wrote the brief and argued before the New York Court of Appeals, the highest court in the state of New York. In Izrailev vs Ficarra Furniture, 70 N.Y.2d 813, 523 N.Y.S.2d 432. The New York Court of Appeals permitted recovery under the New York State Labor Law statute to an electrician who was injured while attempting to repair a sign. This case established the law for the first time that working on a sign, the sign was to be considered a structure, and gave the injured worker the protection and benefit of the Labor Law statute, thus permitting the worker to recover for his injuries.
In a slip and fall on ice, Jaroslawicz & Jaros were successful in the case of Hecht v. City of New York, 02 Civ. 4029 (JGK) (JCF), United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. In a negligence claim for falling on ice, the court found it survived summary judgment because the evidence established that the building superintendent attached a hose to a water spigot, left the water in the “on" position, and did not advise the resident that it was necessary to turn the water off to prevent the hose from icing and bursting.
David Jaroslawicz, of Jaroslawicz & Jaros, was successful in the case of Kaplan v. Lucille Roberts Health Clubs Inc., Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department 63 A.D.3d 470 (2009), 880 N.Y.S.2d 284. Where the court decided that there were issues of fact as to whether the plaintiff, a paying member at the club, was limited to choosing among defective step-aerobic boards supplied by the club for participation in a club-sponsored class, and whether defendants had noticed that a fair number of those boards allegedly lacked stabilizing bottom grips. Factual issues exist as to whether the absence of these grips unreasonably increased the risk of use of the boards, whether this risk was apparent to plaintiff, and whether it approximately caused her injury. Jaroslawicz & Jaros then proceeded to obtain a substantial settlement for this client.
David Jaroslawicz, of Jaroslawicz & Jaros, was successful in a medical malpractice case in Artale v. Thorpe, 03 Civ. 4028 (JSR), United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The court found that in asserting medical malpractice, the patient sufficiently stated that because of an improper diagnosis and stent placement, she was required to undergo frequent tests, examinations and monitoring, at an increased cost and with emotional distress.
David Jaroslawicz of Jaroslawicz & Jaros wrote the brief and argued before the highest court in the state of New York, the New York Court of Appeals, that helped to develop the law concerning infants and the statute of limitations for a medical malpractice action in the case of Daniel J. v. New York City Health & Hosp. Corp., Court of Appeals of New York, 77 N.Y.2d 630; 569 N.Y.S.2d 396. The court found that the statute of limitations for a medical malpractice action provided that where the action accrued during infancy, the extension was limited to 10 years from the time of accrual, and not from the end of the infant’s continuous treatment.
David Jaroslawicz, of Jaroslawicz & Jaros, wrote the brief and argued before the highest court in the state of New York, the New York Court of Appeals, that helped develop the law in the case of Caffaro v. Trayna, Court of Appeals of New York, 35 N.Y.2d 245; 360 N.Y.S.2d 847. The court found that in a medical malpractice action for pain and suffering, an amendment to the complaint to add a cause of action for wrongful death was allowed despite the expiration of the limitations period because the amendment related back to the date of the complaint.
The above are just a representative sampling of the hundreds of motions and appeals handled by David Jaroslawicz and the attorneys at the firm of Jaroslawicz & Jaros. The attorneys not only know and apply the law, but over the years have also developed and changed the law in the area of personal injury.
Unfortunately, we only handle appeals for the cases where our firm has represented the injured party and cannot accept appeals from other firms.
The initial consultation is free of charge, and if we agree to handle your case, we will work on a contingency fee basis, which means we get paid for our services only if there is a monetary recovery of funds. Please call to ensure that you do not waive your right to compensation.
