Gair, Gair, Conason, Rubinowitz, Bloom, Hershenhorn, Steigman & Mackauf is a New York Plaintiff's personal injury law firm specializing in automobile accidents, construction accidents, medical malpractice, products liability, police misconduct and all types of New York personal injury litigation.
Published on:

Howard S. Hershenhorn
Howard S. Hershenhorn
Gair Gair Conason
Steigman Mackauf
Bloom & Rubinowitz
Christopher Sallay

Christopher Sallay
Gair Gair Conason
Steigman Mackauf
Bloom & Rubinowitz

 

 

Howard S. Hershenhorn will serve as Overall Planning Chair and Christopher L. Sallay will serve as Assistant Chair of the New York Bar Association‘s Labor Law/Construction Site Accidents in New York Seminar on Friday, December 9, 2011. Anthony H. Gair and Ben B. Rubinowitz will also be speaking at the event. Ben B. Rubinowitz is also the chair of the Long Island seminar.

Friday, December 2, 2011

Melville Marriott Long Island
1350 Old Walt Whitman Road
Melville, NY 11747
(631) 423-1600

Friday, December 2, 2011

Sheraton Syracuse University Hotel
801 University Avenue
Syracuse, NY 13210-0801
(315) 475-3000

Friday, December 9, 2011

New York State Nurses Association
11 Cornell Road
Latham, NY 12110
(518) 782-9400

Friday, December 9, 2011

Affinia Manhattan
371 Seventh Avenue At 31st Street
New York, NY 10001-3984
(212) 563-1800

Download PDF:
DOC001.jpg

Published on:

Ben B. Rubinowitz

TRIAL PRACTICE
Ben B. Rubinowitz
Gair Gair Conason
Steigman Mackauf
Bloom & Rubinowitz

Ben Rubinowitz, a partner at the New York Law Firm, Gair Gair Conason Steigman Mackauf Bloom & Rubinowitz, will serve as Chair of the New York Bar Association‘s Practical Skills Course, The Basics of Civil Practice — The Trial. The program, which will take place on Tuesday, November 15, 2011, will include all aspects of a trial including: Jury Selection, Opening Statements, Direct and Cross Examination, and Summations. In addition, a portion of this program will be devoted to the use of Expert Witnesses at Trial along with informative suggestions on Motion Practice at Trial, Objections and Jury Instructions.

When asked about this program Mr. Rubinowitz said, “I am delighted to have been asked to Chair this program on Trial Practice. I will be joined with some very talented lawyers including David Dean, Michael Ross, Glenn Dopf, Jeff Korek,Leslie Kelmachter, and Henry Miller. This is sure to be an excellent program.” For more than 25 years Ben Rubinowitz has specialized in representing the seriously injured victims of automobile, train and bus accidents, construction accidents, medical malpractice cases, products liability claims and civil rights violations. Known for his expertise at trial, Ben was recently inducted into the prestigious Inner Circle of Advocates.

Download flyer:
DOC001.jpg

Posted in:
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

nysba.gif

In this new program, an outstanding faculty, including partners of many of New York State’s leading plaintiff and defendant personal injury law firms, will focus on specific types of cases frequently encountered in motor vehicle litigation. Open to both new and experienced attorneys, this practice-based program will present the “nuts & bolts” of handling these types of cases from the perspective of both the plaintiff and the defendant.

Topics Include: 

Program Co-Chairs:

Published on:

law-firm-gair-gair-conason-steigman-mackauf-bloom-rubinowitz-photo-572119.jpgGair, Gair, Conason, Rubinowitz, Bloom, Hershenhorn, Steigman & Mackauf, a leading New York law firm, announces that it has been listed in six practice areas in the just released ranking of law firms by U.S. News Media Group, the publishers of U.S. News & World Report, and Best Lawyers®. This is the second edition of this highly-anticipated annual analysis.

Gair, Gair, Conason, Rubinowitz, Bloom, Hershenhorn, Steigman & Mackauf was nationally ranked in the top tier in Product Liability Litigation. The firm also ranked in the top tier in five legal specialties in the New York City Metropolitan Area in Legal Malpractice, Medical Malpractice, Personal Injury Litigation, Product Liability Litigation and Professional Malpractice Law. Additionally, the firm was ranked in the second tier in Mass Tort Litigation/Class Actions in the New York Metropolitan area.

Inclusion in the “Best Law Firms” listing is based on a rigorous evaluation process that includes data collection, evaluation and feedback from thousands of clients, lawyers and law firm representatives spanning a wide range of practice areas nationwide.

Posted in:
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

steigman-richard.jpg

TRIAL PRACTICE
Richard M. Steigman, Esq.
Gair Gair Conason
Steigman Mackauf
Bloom & Rubinowitz

Our attorney Richard Steigman will be speaking at the The New York State Trial Lawyers Association Decisions 2011 program on November 2, 2011. The topic he will be speaking on is Trial Practice. This annual event is the most comprehensive and effective way to review last year’s decisions, amendments and other changes in New York tort law.

CLICK HERE TO REGISTER OR ORDER DISCS
INFORMATION:

Wednesday, November 2, 2011: 9am to 5pm
Huntington Hilton 598 Broadhollow Road
Melville, NY 11747 Tel: (914) 631-5700

Published on:

In The CourtsThe New York County Lawyers’ Association is presenting a Public Forum on Judicial Independence. Among the issues to be discussed include: The debate over whether Judicial Disciplinary Hearings should be open or closed and what the press’ responsibility should be to ensure balanced reporting of public accusations against a judge. Ben Rubinowitz of GGCSMB&R will be a featured speaker at this conference. Mr. Rubinowitz, known as a “Trial Lawyer’s Trial Lawyer,” who represents severely injured individuals in personal injury and medical malpractice cases, has also represented a number of judges in disciplinary matters before the NYS Judicial Conduct Commission. In a statement Rubinowitz said ” I am honored to participate in this conference with such esteemed members of the Trial Bar and Judiciary.”

The conference will take place on:

Wednesday, November 2, 2011 from 6:00 – 8:00pm

Posted in:
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

In a must read case The New York Court of Appeals in Wilinski v. 334 East 92nd Housing Development Fund Corp., et al., decided October 25, 2011, 2011 NY Slip Op 7477, held that;

“Some New York courts have interpreted our decision in Misseritti v Mark IV Constr. Co. (86 NY2d 487 [1995]) to preclude recovery under Labor Law § 240 (1) where a worker sustains an injury caused by a falling object whose base stands at the same level as the worker. We reject that interpretation and hold that such a circumstance does not categorically bar the worker from recovery under section 240 (1). However, in this case, an issue of fact exists as to whether the worker’s injury resulted from the lack of a statutorily prescribed protective device.”

The Court went on to explain Misseritti;

Published on:

In a 3-2 decision The New York Appellate Division, 3d Department, in GROVE v. CORNELL UNIVERSITY et al., 75 A.D.3d 718; 904 N.Y.S.2d 559; 2010, denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on his 2401(1) claim while granting defendants’ cross motion dismissing the claim holding that plaintiff’s own negligent conduct was, as a matter of law, the sole proximate cause of his injuries. The facts as set forth by the majority were;

“Defendant Cornell University hired defendant Skanska USA Building, Inc. as the general contractor to construct a building on its campus. Skanska subcontracted the window work to Clayton B. Obersheimer, Inc., which employed plaintiff as a glazier. Plaintiff and a coworker, William Sobel, were performing work installing rubber membranes and metal flashing on the second story windows of the building. To reach the windows, plaintiff and Sobel utilized a mechanical telescoping boom lift, as they had done previously. Attached to the boom lift was a metal basket in which plaintiff, Sobel, their tools and materials were situated. Three of the four sides of the basket were enclosed by permanent metal rails. The fourth side was enclosed by a metal gate that opened into the basket to allow for ingress and egress of the workers. The gate was designed with a spring-loaded hinge so as to automatically swing the gate to a closed position when not in use. Plaintiff and Sobel were also provided with safety harnesses and lanyards that were to be attached to the basket to prevent them from falling out of the basket while it was in the raised position. Following a work break and the retrieval of additional materials, plaintiff and Sobel reentered the lift basket and plaintiff began operating the lift, raising it to the second floor. Sobel noticed that plaintiff had not attached the lanyard on his harness to the basket and reminded him to do so. Sobel then began work on a window and, within moments, turned around and saw that plaintiff was gone and the gate was in the open position. Plaintiff fell at least 30 feet, landed on a narrow slab of concrete below and suffered significant injuries”

The majority found that the fact that the spring-loaded hinge was not operating properly did not render the gate defective and that if plaintiff had either attached his lanyard as required or closed and latched the gate manually, the provided safety devices would have prevented him from falling out of the basket. The dissent argued based on BLAKE and DUDA, that once a violation of 240(1) is shown a plaintiff’s conduct can’t be held as a matter of law to be the sole proximate cause of his accident, stating;

Published on:

In a 3-2 decision The New York Appellate Division, 1st Department affirmed the granting of summary judgment to a construction worker on his 240(1) claim. In Reavely v.Yonkers Raceway Programs, Inc., et al., decided on October 20, 2011, the worker suffered injury while assisting in the installation of a hang wall at the edge of a building foundation. The pertinent facts as to the happening of the accident were set forth by The Court;

“Approximately 10 minutes before plaintiff approached the wall to make the cut, another contractor had finished installing waterproofing on the surface of the foundation where plaintiff would be doing the work. Plaintiff knew that it ordinarily takes at least 20 minutes for the waterproofing, which is a tar-like, viscous material, to dry. However, he was directed to make the cut immediately and did not want to defy his supervisor by waiting until he could be certain that the surface was safe. Plaintiff tested the material, and it appeared dry enough to stand on, so he commenced his work. As he was completing the cut, he attempted to replant his right foot and slipped on the viscous waterproofing. According to plaintiff’s affidavit submitted in connection with the subject summary judgment motions, “When I slipped I lost my balance. My body was pulled forward and I hovered over the uncovered 10 feet trench edge without fall protection. It was 10 feet deep there because that particular section had not been backfilled. I felt that I was about to go over the edge. I reacted immediately and instinctively to teetering by trying to stand up. I also desperately tried to counter the momentum pulling me over the edge by arching back. I knew that I was holding a potentially lethal saw which I was about to go over ]with, or even worse, on. Worried about hitting my leg as well and in the process of teetering and desperately trying to prevent myself from going fully over the trench edge, my right hand came off the operating saw and it struck my right hand, thumb and forefinger before it dropped.” Thus, according to plaintiff’s uncontested version of events, he did not actually sustain his injury by falling into the trench, but rather by attempting to prevent himself from falling.”

In rejecting the defendants’ attorney’s assertion that plaintiffs’ Labor Law § 240(1) claim should be dismissed because plaintiff did not fall from a height, and no object fell upon him from above it held;