STOP & FRISK

In 2009 there were approximately 575,000 “Stop & Frisk” reports filed by NYPD officers. Of these, only about 6% resulted in arrests, and another 6% resulted in a summons being issued. The position of the Police Department is that Stop & Frisks are an effective crime-fighting tool.  The Department holds onto the information it gathers in each Stop & Frisk “indefinitely,” with the intention of using that information, if necessary, in future investigations. Between 2004 and 2009 there were 2,798,461 “Stops” by the police, and 2,467,160 resulted in no action at all, yet each person stopped has a record with personal information on file with the police.

Certain members of the New York City Council have demanded that all the individuals, in instances where either no action was taken at the time of the “Stop”, or where action may have been taken but the person was later found “not guilty”, or was exonerated in some other way, be removed entirely from this database.  The majority of individuals affected are minorities (Black and Latino).

The final outcome of this tug of war between the New York City Police Department and the City Council has yet to be determined.  I will note, personally, as a former New York City council member, that it is my belief that any recalcitrance by the Police Department can be overcome by the City Council through the passage of legislation, if that is truly the Council’s desire.

AUTOMOBILE INJURIES: HOPEFUL SIGNS | POTENTIAL DANGER

A recent report by the Insurance Council of Texas indicated a steady seven year decline in Texas in the number of people injured or killed in automobile accidents. The decline is over 20%. The Texas Department of Transportation confirms a drop in five of the last six years. While we have not performed the research to confirm this point, scuttlebutt among the personal injury bar is that the number of automobile cases across the nation have diminished significantly over the past several years. This is reflected in caseloads involving auto accidents, and in the nature of cases appearing on court calendars. It is confirmed by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety which indicated that Texas is following a nationwide trend. (“Claims Journal,“ Feb. 10, 2010)

Why is this the case? Simply because the safety features now available in cars assist the vehicle occupants to mitigate injuries when accidents do occur, and also assist a vehicle operator in avoiding an accident from occurring in the first place. Effective seat-belts, front and side airbags and head restraints fall into the mitigation of injury category. Electronic stability control, traction control, ABS brakes, and even forward collision and lane departure warnings fall into the accident avoidance category.

We remind the reader, however, that a major contributor to a potential upsurge in highway accidents lurks in mobile devices, whether handheld or otherwise, as numerous studies have indicated.

On this point, an insurance company recently settled a matter involving the death of two bicyclists in South Carolina for 5 million dollars (unusual in itself in that such a large amount of insurance was available). Why did the company settle on behalf of its inured rather than go to trial?: Their insured had pleaded guilty, criminally, to reckless driving after having been originally charged with “reckless homicide”. A basis for those charges: the driver of the vehicle was on a cell phone at the time of the crash. (Claims Journal, February 10, 2010)

If you have been injured by a driver that was on a handheld device in any manner contact our Manhattan Accident Attorneys office at Orlow Law today.

WORKERS COMPENSATION: THIRD PARTY ACTION

As a general rule, as we have stated previously, if there is a possibility of bringing a lawsuit against some party OTHER THAN one’s employer or co-worker (“THIRD PARTY ACTION”), for a injury sustained on the job, the recovery will almost always be greater than the worker’s compensation award that may be given, if both remedies are available. Without explaining the technicalities of liens that arise, we can summarize by saying that the injured party will usually have the luxury of keeping the greater of the two amounts. Often, there is no third party available to sue. Sometimes, there may not be Workers Compensation available to a worker, though he may think there should be. It can be a close call.

Example: A worker is on his way to a job site in his automobile and crashes with another vehicle. It is the other vehicle’s fault. The worker is very seriously injured. The other auto has only the minimum insurance coverage which is not nearly enough to fairly compensate the injured worker. Workers Compensation now becomes extremely important since the worker may be disabled for his entire life.

In New Jersey recently, it was decided that a worker, on a coffee break, WAS entitled to Workers Compensation.** The yardstick?: Was the activity of the worker at the time he was injured “within the course of his employment?”

In this case, even though the worker chose to drive five miles away from the work location for the coffee break, it was found that the diversion was caused by the worker having to wait for another person he was to meet, and the coffee break was a reasonable thing to do in the meantime. The result: the worker can get Workers Compensation for his severe injuries and will be covered for a lifetime disability. If it had been decided that the coffee break was NOT “within the course of his employment,” all the worker would have to look forward to was the small amount available under a limited automobile insurance policy…

Any time a “third party” may be involved in a work injury, it is absolutely essential that an experienced Personal Injury Attorney, in addition to a Workers Compensation Attorney, be consulted…A worker does himself a terrible injustice, and may subject himself to grievous financial damage, if he fails to heed this advice.

**Http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/east/2010/01/25/106840.htm

Official proceedings to remove Anthony Abbate from the Chicago Police Department began this week.

On Monday, Novermber 16, city attorneys aired lengthy recordings to highlight how the events unfolded at Jesse’s Short Stop Inn on the afternoon and evening of Feb. 19, 2007. During two visits to the Northwest Side bar, Abbate consumed large quantities of alcohol and continuously harassed and physically abused the bartender, Karolina Obrycka, and patrons according to the attorneys and the charges filed against him by Police Superintendent Jody Weis. Tuesdays proceedings started with the airing of a 30 minutes video showing the officer showboating and harassing patrons of a Northwest Side bar before he turns on the bartender, beating and kicking her Abbate was already convicted in criminal court for the felony aggravated battery of Obrycka and now faces dismissal from the department before the Chicago Police Board.

He continuiously invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination at least 75 times during questioning by city attorney Anna L. D’Ascenzo,

who repeatedly asked Abbate to identify himself on the recording. Obrycka took the stand and watched the video that shows her being punched, beaten, pushed and yanked by the hair by the 13-year officer. “I heard him say, ‘Nobody will tell me what to do,’ ” Obrycka said. “I believe the only thing I said…I said, ‘Stop.’ “Michael Malatesta, Abbate’s attorney, called the hearing a formality, considering that Abbate cannot serve as a police officer with a felony conviction. “There is no getting around it,” he said.

As one of a handful of law firms in New York City representing victims of police misconduct, The Orlow Firm has extensive experience helping victims of:

* Police Brutality and Prison Guard Abuse

* False Arrest

* All other types of police misconduct.

Many complaints of police misconduct are ignored.

They are frequently brushed off as if the person must be lying or somehow deserves his or her fate by having been involved with the police in the first place. If you are a victim of police misconduct, it’s important to contact a lawyer immediately. You may only have ninety days to file an action against the police department.

Source: chicagotribune.com