Privacy Statement

Introduction

This privacy statement applies to information collected through this Site and it does not apply to information that we collect through other means (e.g., other websites or other methods such as telephone calls), or to information collected on any other company or third-party site regardless of whether such site links to or is accessible from this Site. You should carefully read the privacy statements of any other websites

Collection & Use of Information
Technical and Usage Information

When you visit this Site, it automatically collects certain information about you and your request (e.g., your Internet Protocol (“IP”) address, the content that you request), and other information provided by your browser (e.g., browser name, referral site). This information may be used to improve the content and usefulness of this Site, to understand your usage of the Site and to customize content based on your usage. Additionally, this Site makes use of “cookies”. Please see our cookie statement for additional information.

Disclosures of Information

Your personal information will be shared within the company. We may disclose your personal information to answer your inquiry or to fulfill the purposes of the Site or to service providers.

Children

We do not want to collect or maintain information from those under the age of 13. No part of this Site is structured to attract anyone under the age of 13. By using our Site, you represent that you are not less than 13 years of age.

Links

This Site may contain links to other sites. The company has no control over the information and privacy policies and practices of those websites, and is not responsible for their content, collection and use of information, or freedom from error or viruses. It is your responsibility to recognize, by paying attention to your browser’s address bar, when you are leaving this Site.

Legal Statement

This Privacy Statement forms part of the Terms & Conditions for use of this Site. You should also review the Terms & Conditions, as your use of this Site and any dispute arising under this Privacy Statement is subject to the terms and conditions contained therein.

Verdicts & Settlements

$3 Million in Fall from Ladder

$3,000,000 in Fall From Ladder in Westchester County: Plaintiff was an HVAC worker who fell from an interior, wall mounted ladder that lead to a roof hatch in a refrigerated warehouse. The ladder did not have a safety cage. As plaintiff climbed the ladder his hand struck an unknown object affixed to the wall next to the ladder causing him to lose his balance and fall 15 feet to the floor below. As a result of the fall, the HVAC worker suffered a complicated fracture of his right wrist that required multiple surgeries. He also sustained a knee injury that required two arthroscopic procedures and disc herniations in his neck and back that required surgery. The neck and back injuries were not diagnosed for nine months after the accident. As a result of this accident, plaintiff became disabled from his employment and underwent extensive medical care. Defendants argued that this case was not one contemplated by the Labor Law and that all of plaintiff’s injuries, with the exception of his wrist, were not related to the accident. Richard Noll was successful in obtaining summary judgment under Labor Law 240(1) that was affirmed on appeal where the court held that this accident occurred during the “repair” of a building rather than ordinary maintenance. This settlement was then negotiated on the eve of trial in Westchester County Supreme Court.

$1.04 Million for Wrist Fracture

$1,040,000 for wrist fracture in car accident in Richmond County: Plaintiff was a young teacher in her early twenties when her car was struck by defendant’s car. As a result of the collision, plaintiff’s radius and ulna (bones in the forearm) were fractured after becoming caught in the steering wheel. She developed compartment syndrome in her forearm that required emergency fasciotomy surgery and an eventual skin graft. Defendants refused to settle her claim prior to trial for a fair and just amount of money since the case was pending in “conservative Richmond County”. Our tenacious trial preparation finally pushed defendant’s insurance carrier to tender $1,040,000 out of their $1,050,000 in coverage.

$1.02 Million for Internal Injuries

$1,020,000 for internal injuries from car accident in Queens County: Our client was an unemployed young woman passenger in a car involved in an intersection accident. As the result of the negligence of both cars she sustained multiple internal injuries including a rupture of her aorta. Thanks to the quick actions of emergency personnel and hospital staff, her life threatening injuries were resolved and after a short hospital stay, had no further limitations. However, she was left with surgical scars to her abdomen and back. Both defendants initially argued that her injuries did not rise to the level of “serious injury” and that she made an excellent recovery. After jury selection, the insurance carriers tendered all but $5,000 of the available insurance coverage.

$1 Million for Fractured Vertebrae

$1,000,000 for fractured vertebrae in Kings County: Our 21 year old, unemployed client who had just moved to the United States, was the front seat passenger in a car being operated by a young man she just met that evening. As the defendant rounded a curve on the Grand Central Parkway he veered off the road and struck a tree. The defendant driver claimed that his young passenger had grabbed the steering wheel of his car, causing the crash. As a result of this collision, our client suffered a fracture of her T12 vertebrae that required the surgical insertion of a “Harrington Rod” and left her with a permanent scar to her back. Defendants also claimed that our client failed to use an available seat belt. Richard Noll persuaded the jury to hold the defendant completely at fault for causing the accident and to award her one million dollars for her pain and suffering.

$925K for Intoxicated Pedestrian

$925,000 for intoxicated pedestrian in Suffolk County: Our client was a 30 year old, unemployed mother of five children with a documented history of drug and alcohol addiction. Just before midnight, she was crossing Bellport Road in Suffolk County with a family member. They had just left a party where she admitted to consuming five alcoholic drinks. As she crossed into the lane of traffic, she was struck by one car and knocked into the oncoming lane of travel. After some time, her motionless body was run over a second time by the second defendant. As a result of these two impacts, our client suffered multiple fractures of her legs and pelvis that required several surgeries. The hospital records listed her blood alcohol content as three times the legal limit. Defendants claimed plaintiff’s intoxication was an absolute defense to the accident. Richard Noll crafted an argument that the lapse in time between the first impact and the second impact, as plaintiff lay unconscious on the ground, made her intoxication irrelevant to any claim for her comparative fault. After five days of jury selection and pre-trial arguments, this settlement was achieved with gratitude from our client.

$531K for Pain & Suffering

531,000 verdict against the State of New York in the Court of Claims, Westchester County: Our client was no angel. He grew up on the streets of upstate Beacon and had been in serious trouble with the law on several occasions, even serving several years in prison. Then in 1984 he was arrested, tried and convicted of rape and sodomy in the First Degree in Orange County, New York. In 1995, with the use of DNA evidence he was exonerated of all charges and set free. He then retained Richard Noll to prosecute his claim against the State of New York under the “Unjust Conviction Act”. We had to affirmatively prove our client’s innocence and establish that he did not contribute to his arrest or conviction in any way. With the use of DNA evidence and the testimony of forensic scientists retained from the New York City Medical Examiner’s office we were successful in establishing the State’s liability. Richard Noll then took a second verdict in the Court of Claims where our client was awarded $530,000.00 for his pain and suffering.

460K for Eye Injury

Kings County: After one week of trial against the City of New York, Richard Noll was able to settle this action on behalf of his client, a 42 year old taxi cab driver. The plaintiff’s taxi cab was struck by a marked police radio car as it was responding to a “10-13” radio call – “officer in need of assistance”. As a result of the collision, the plaintiff suffered a detached retina of his left eye that resulted in blindness to the eye. Thankfully he was still able to make a living as a livery driver. The City of New York initially denied liability claiming that its police car had the right to operate at an increased speed and to disobey red traffic lights since it was in an emergency operation. The law required plaintiff to prove the police violated the elevated standard of care of “recklessness” rather than ordinary negligence. Just prior to the cross examination of the defendant police officer the City of New York relented and agreed to pay $460,000 to our client.

$458K for Laborer Electrical Arc Event

$458,000 laborer electrical arc event in New York County: This Labor Law 241(6) claim was prosecuted based upon a violation of the Industrial Code that mandated that electrical power be turned off before any construction or demolition work. Our client was one of the electricians hired to turn off the power during the renovation of a commercial building in lower Manhattan. Our client’s supervisor went into the building of the basement to turn off the power. The plaintiff, knowing the power was still live, started to remove breakers from a live electrical panel. The panel exploded in an arc event causing third degree burns to his forearm requiring a skin graft surgery. Defendants all moved to dismiss the case arguing that a specific provision of the Industrial Code was not violated. They also argued plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of the accident. After defeating the summary judgment motions this case was settled on the eve of trial.

$400K for Science Experiment Gone Bad

$400,000 for science experiment gone bad against NYC in Queens County: The plaintiff was a fifth grade student at a NYC public school. His science teacher asked all students to prepare projects for the school science fair. This student asked the teacher for an idea for his project. After speaking to the teacher, our client left school, went home in the company of his parents and mixed vinegar and chloride bleach. The “science project” caused a cloud of noxious gas that when inhaled by the student resulted in respiratory distress and ARDS. After two months of hospitalization and one month of rehabilitation, the student returned to school and led an otherwise normal life. The case was prosecuted on the theory that the NYC school teacher directed the student to perform a dangerous experiment, not appropriate for his age and that it was liable even though the incident occurred after school hours, off of the school property while the student was under the care of his parents. One the eve of jury selection we secured the $400,000 in compensation for the student who was now sixteen years old.

$300K for Trip & Fall on Sidewalk

$300,000 settlement for trip and fall on sidewalk in New York County: Our client was a 79 year old resident of the upper west side walking to church when she tripped and fell on a crack in the sidewalk. The height differential was just less than one inch. There were no witnesses to the actual fall but she did report it to the members of her church immediately afterwards. She was taken to the emergency room where she was diagnosed with a four part humeral fracture (upper arm). She was admitted to the hospital and underwent a hemiarthroplasty (partial shoulder replacement surgery). Defendants argued that the accident was not witnessed; the defect was minimal and it was on a sidewalk that the plaintiff walked across many times before the date of accident so she should have been able to avoid the crack. We successfully argued that the defendant building owner was liable for the sidewalk condition under the New York City Administrative Code as the owner of a multiple dwelling and that the defect was in excess of one half inch – therefore a dangerous condition as defined by the Code. On the eve of jury selection, the client accepted $300,000 in settlement of her claim.

$200K for Trip & Fall

$200,000 settlement after liability verdict against Keyspan in Queens County: Plaintiff, 63 years of age, tripped and fell on a depressed gas main valve box cover in a crosswalk causing a three part fracture of the humerus of her non-dominant arm. The case was presented to a Queens County jury arguing that Keyspan made a special use of the roadway by its ownership and use of the utility cover installed in the roadway. We also argued that Keyspan created the dangerous condition when it installed the gas main pipes four years earlier but then failed to properly back fill, compact and repave the roadway. Defendant argued that plaintiff never actually saw what caused her to fall and that she caused her own accident. It also tried to shift the blame for the dangerous roadway condition to another utility company that excavated a trench next to the gas line installation. The jury returned a verdict after only fifty minutes of deliberation finding Keyspan negligent and that its negligence was a substantial factor in causing the accident. The jury also determined that plaintiff was not negligent. The case was then settled for $200,000 compensating plaintiff for her pain and suffering.

Suzanne Bidart

My role at the Noll Law Firm is to gather, review, and assess medical documentation attached to every client. We strive to ascertain and understand the fundamental aspects of client’s medical history and injuries sustained to support each of our client’s cases.

Prior to joining the Noll Law Firm, I spent many years working as a Registered Nurse in emergency rooms and critical care units. Additionally, I spent several years working as a Rehabilitation Nurse for insurance companies with the main goal of getting our respective clients back to work, if possible. This goal was accomplished with assessing the needs of each individual client, such as attending medical visits to better understand the physicians’ goals in his treatment and making sure these goals were implemented and maintained. These experiences afforded me the ability to understand the science and treatments behind many of our client’s injuries.

What Should I Do After Being Bit By A Dog in Suffolk County?

  • You should immediately ask the dog’s owner if their pet is licensed, in order to track to dog’s health and bite history
  • You may also ask the owner if the dog has a history of biting any other individuals
  • It is important to determine who the dog’s veterinarian is to verify that you are not at risk for any serious injuries
  • You may get the police involved if you are having trouble obtaining any of this information
  • Can I Sue The Owner Of the Dog that Bite Me in Long Island?

  • It is difficult to succeed in prosecuting a Case for Injuries against the Owner of a Dog
  • You need to be able to prove that the owner knew of the dog’s violent propensities
  • Your Case will probably fail, if you cannot prove that the dog has a History of Violence
  • Witnesses can help you establish a successful claim
  • Many county government agencies will keep public records of Dog Bites
  • The Dog Owner will need Homeowner’s Insurance, or an Umbrella Liability Policy, in order to receive proper Compensation
  • What are Bedsores in Suffolk County?

  • A Bedsore is an open wound that develops because the staff is not properly adjusting or moving the patient
  • You can view these types of injuries from a Negligence Perspective
  • A Negligence Perspective does not deal with medical decisions, but instead with the standard duty of care
  • A Professional Negligence claim may come forth from the failure to develop a medical course of action
  • You will need an expert witness to show that a worker departed from the standard of medical care, that resulted in an injury towards your loved one