- DeTOFFOL & ASSOCIATES

Byddtlaw

Motor Vehicle Crash

New York

Kings County

MOTOR VEHICLE

Broadside — Motor Vehicle — Intersection — Motor Vehicle — Multiple Vehicle —Motor Vehicle — Question of Lights — Motor Vehicle — Red Light

Lawsuit: Motorist ran red light to cause crash that injured plaintiff

Verdict (P)            $40,000

Case Anthony Pierce v. Vitalii Korolyk and Alexander Oberfeld, No. 5211/14

Court     Kings Supreme

Judge     Bernard J. Graham

Date       12/6/2016

Plaintiff

Attorney(s)

                David J. DeToffol, DeToffol & Associates, New York, NY

  Read More

Byddtlaw

Auto Defects

 

An unfortunate reality for people injured or killed in a motor vehicle collision is that most drivers carry only the minimum auto insurance that their state requires. And with minimum requirements ranging from only $15,000 to $50.000 , a negligent driver likely is vastly underinsured!  When handling auto crash cases, you must be diligent and identify all potential failures that resulted in injury-an auto defect may result in more serious injuries than occurred otherwise.

The Takata air bag and GM ignition switch scandals may look like unprecedented auto safety crises, but are they? Before them, there was Toyota’s sudden acceleration defect.  The Ford/ Firestone stability and rollover defects, dangerous passive seat belt unlatching, and Ford Pinto fuel-fed fires.  And between each of these high-profile auto defect crises were countless other auto defects that caused catastrophic injury or death. Each one highlights the critical importance of carefully evaluating every motor \’Chicle crash case for a potential auto product defect.

Although some auto defects cause collisions – for example, the Toyota sudden acceleration or GM ignition switches-these claims more often involve “crashworthiness” or “enhanced injury.” Crash worthiness claims arise when a vehicle fails in a manner that causes more serious injuries than would have occurred without the defect. The common law “second collision” doctrine permits a plaintiff to recover when a manufacturer fails to design a vehicle to protect occupants in the event of a crash.  This

claim only covers enhanced injuries caused by defective design.  So the vehicle manufacturer is liable for those injuries regardless of how or why the accident happened-though some states allow defendants to compare the plaintiff’s fault in the initial crash. For example, in 2011, the Florida legislature amended state law to expressly permit juries to consider and compare the fault of all sources- even nonparties and even in the initial collision-potentially responsible for the injury:’

Read More

Byddtlaw

TRADEMARK OWNERS THAT WORK EFFECTIVELY WITH US CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION (CBP) CAN MITIGATE THE RISKS AND PROTECT THE VALUE OF THEIR BRANDS, FROM IMPORTED INFRINGING GOODS.

 

RECORDING A TRADEMARK REGISTRATION WITH CBP

To obtain full CBP protection against the importation of goods bearing infringing trademarks, trademark owners should record their federally registered marks with CBP. Only marks registered on the USPTO’s Principal Register are eligible for CBP recordation . Common law marks and marks registered on the USPTO’s Supplemental Register cannot be recorded with CBP.

 

BENEFITS OF RECORDING A TRADEMARK WITH CBP

Trademark owners who record marks with CBP enjoy advantages that include:

  • Increased CBP enforcement of their marks because:
  • customs officers are more aware of recorded marks; and
  • CBP focuses its enforcement efforts on recorded marks as a matter of policy.
  • Enhanced CBP enforcement authority for recorded marks, such as the ability to detain and seize copying or simulating marks.
  • Entitlement to information from CBP relating to the detention and seizure of goods bearing infringing marks (see below Information Disclosed by CBP).

 

APPLICATION TO RECORD A TRADEMARK REGISTRATION WITHCBP

CBP permits the filing of paper applications. However, most trademark owners file applications online using CBP’s Intellectual Property e-Recordation system. Advantages of the e-Recordation system include that it:

  • Eliminates paper applications and the need to submit supporting documents (for example, multiple copies of certificates of registration).
  • Permits the trademark owner to upload images of the protected mark.
  • Allows the trademark owner to pay immediately by credit card (payment may also be made by check or money order after the application is filed).
  • Reduces the time for filing and processing the application.

 

The information that a trademark owner should submit to record a trademark registration with CBP includes:

  • Details of the trademark registration.
  • Name, business address, and cit izenship of the trademark owner.
  • Country or countries of manufacture of legitimate goods bearing the mark.
  • Names and addresses of persons and companies authorized to use the mark.
  • The identity of any parent or subsidiary company or other foreign company under common ownership or control that uses the trademark outside the US.

 

There is a $190 fee for each class of goods covered in the recordation.

Byddtlaw

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR (DOL) FINAL FLSA OVERTIME EXEMPTION RULE

sexual_harasment1

Employers should identify the employees impacted by the DOL new final overtime rule and take appropriate action to ensure compliance by the December 1, 2016 deadline. The final rule updates the overtime exemption regulations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) by:

  • Increasing the minimum salary required for exemption of executive, administrative, and professional employees (also known as the EAP or white collar exemptions) from $455 to $913 per week (or from $23,660 to $47,476 annually).
  • Increasing the total annual compensation requirement for the highly compensated employee (HCE) exemption from $100,000 to $134,004.
  • Providing a mechanism to update these salary and compensation levels automatically every three years.
  • Allowing employers to satisfy up to 10% of the new salary level for the EAP exemptions using nondiscretionary bonuses and incentive payments.

The final rule does not change the duties test. Employers should:

  • Audit their workforce.
  • For employees that no longer meet the compensation thresholds for the EAP and HCE exemptions under the new rule:
  • increase salaries to the new threshold; or
  • reclassify those employees as nonexempt.
  • For employees reclassified as nonexempt:
  • pay overtime for hours worked over 40 hours per workweek or limit hours worked to 4..0 hours per workweek;
  • consider hiring additional workers or giving more hours to part-time workers to limit overtime;
  • determine whether compensation or benefits packages may be adjusted to offset any overtime pay; and
  • provide training on timekeeping and overtime policies, including the use of email after work hours.
  • Formulate a communications plan to explain any changes to employees, answer questions, and handle potential morale issues.
  • Consider reevaluating the exempt status of employees unaffected by the salary change to ensure they meet the duties test.According to US Dept. of Labor https://www.dol.gov/general/topic/workhours

… AND EMPLOYEES WORK REMOTELY, PARTICULARLY IN LIGHT OF TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCES Remote Employees: Best Practices It has become increasingly common for employers to have employees work remotely, particularly in light of technological advances that have made it relatively easy to perform many job duties outside the confines of a traditional office.  Also referred to as telecommuting, remote work includes any work performed from a location away from the employer’s central workplace, often at the employee’s home. This Checklist describes the steps employers should take and the legal requirements they should consider when employing a remote workforce. It discusses federal requirements, but is also useful for evaluating state law issues.   IMPLEMENT AND DISTRIBUTE A TELECOMMUTING POLICY COMPLY WITH THE ADA UNDERSTAND WHEN TELECOMMUTING MAY BE A REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION AVOID DISCRIMINATION CLAIMS – handle all requests to telecommute consistently and minimize the risk of discrimination claims. USE ELECTRONIC SIGNATURES APPROPRIATELY –review federal and state laws governing the use of electronic signatures. MAKE ONLINE EMPLOYMENT APPLICATIONS ADA ACCESSIBLE COMPLY WITH IMMIGRATION LAWS COMPLY WITH WAGE AND HOUR REQUIREMENTS COMPLY WITH WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAWS – understand that remote employees may be eligible to receive workers’ compensation for injuries or occupational illnesses that occur at home if the injury or illness arises out of and in the course of employment. RECORD WORK-RELATED INJURIES AND ILLNESSES UNDER THE OSH ACT – record work-related workplace injuries and illnesses that occur at a remote employee’s home in accordance with the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act) if the injury or illness.

Byddtlaw

WORK EFFECTIVELY WITH US CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION (CBP)

images (1)

 

 

 

 

 

RECORDING A TRADEMARK REGISTRATION WITH CBP To obtain full CBP protection against the importation of goods bearing infringing trademarks, trademark owners should record their federally registered marks with CBP. Only marks registered on the USPTO’s Principal Register are eligible for CBP recordation . Common law marks and marks registered on the USPTO’s Supplemental Register cannot be recorded with CBP.   BENEFITS OF RECORDING A TRADEMARK WITH CBP Trademark owners who record marks with CBP enjoy advantages that include:

  • Increased CBP enforcement of their marks because:
  • customs officers are more aware of recorded marks; and
  • CBP focuses its enforcement efforts on recorded marks as a matter of policy.
  • Enhanced CBP enforcement authority for recorded marks, such as the ability to detain and seize copying or simulating marks.
  • Entitlement to information from CBP relating to the detention and seizure of goods bearing infringing marks (see below Information Disclosed by CBP).

APPLICATION TO RECORD A TRADEMARK REGISTRATION WITHCBP CBP permits the filing of paper applications. However, most trademark owners file applications online using CBP’s Intellectual Property e-Recordation system. Advantages of the e-Recordation system include that it:

  • Eliminates paper applications and the need to submit supporting documents (for example, multiple copies of certificates of registration).
  • Permits the trademark owner to upload images of the protected mark.
  • Allows the trademark owner to pay immediately by credit card (payment may also be made by check or money order after the application is filed).
  • Reduces the time for filing and processing the application.

The information that a trademark owner should submit to record a trademark registration with CBP includes:

  • Details of the trademark registration.
  • Name, business address, and cit izenship of the trademark owner.
  • Country or countries of manufacture of legitimate goods bearing the mark.
  • Names and addresses of persons and companies authorized to use the mark.
  • The identity of any parent or subsidiary company or other foreign company under common ownership or control that uses the trademark outside the US.

There is a $190 fee for each class of goods covered in the recordation.

Byddtlaw

Sakho v. NYC Board of Education

Broken Leg, Bronx County   $500,000

Sakho v. NYC Board of Education

 

This Board of Education’s school principal Ms. Katina Lotakis-Manne knew that it was important, as she had done at times in the past, to provide a safe harbor for her junior high school students.  With metal barricades placed in the roadway each morning, she would divert busy morning traffic away from this school building’s main entrance to protect the arriving students.

Situated there, just a few steps from the street curb, was the school’s only and main entrance, where the unsupervised students arrived daily by foot and by bus, and gathered daily in a large mass that spilled onto the street – – as they waited to gain access, and where attendance was taken by the Board of Education school aides.

Aware of the principal’s necessary safety practice, the local police precinct instructed her that the Board of Education would be ticketed until she obtained a Department of Transportation (“DOT”) permit, easily obtained, for the daily morning temporary placement of barricades in the street.

For more than five months prior to the subject incident, the principal took no action to obtain a permit, and failed to cordon or supervise a necessary safe harbor area, where and when our plaintiff student was struck by a motorists car, in the roadway immediately alongside the curb, where to barricades previously had had their effect.

For Mr. Sakho we convinced the First Department appellate court that the NYC Board of Education is not absolved from a duty of reasonable care towards the students’ safety, when an incident occurs merely five minutes before the school entrance doors were officially opened for student entry at 7:30 a.m., and [2] that our client being propelled by the gathering student crowd was not the sole proximate cause of the incident.

Byddtlaw

Sylvia Cubero v. New York City Transit Authority

DeToffol & Associates recovered $157,500 for our client in the case Sylvia Cubero v. New York City Transit Authority.If you or someone you know is injured in an accident like this contact us . WE CAN HELP.

DeToffol & Associates

(212) 962-2220

accident@ddtlaw.com

12027124_400633490135469_2618100336005491727_o

 

Byddtlaw

SHOULDER DISLOCATION AFTER A CAR ACCIDENT

DeTOFFOL & ASSOCIATES recovered $50,000 for shoulder dislocation occurred after a car accident for the case Mercedes Casado v. Michela Bentivegna Lichtenstein as Administrator of the Estate of Eugene Lichtenstein. If you or someone you know is injured , contact us. We can help. DeToffol & Associates (212)-962-2220 accident@ddtlaw.com

12304427_408101852721966_16040402766031034_o

Byddtlaw

Tino DelGreco v. NYC transit Authority and MTA

Detoffol & Associates recovered $600,000 for our client in the case Tino DelGreco v. NYC transit Authority and MTA.  If you or someone you know is injured in an accident like this contact us . WE CAN HELP.

http://ddtlaw.com/
DeTof­fol & Asso­ciates
30 Broad Street, 35th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Phone: 212−962−2220

11703449_368755856656566_6457438621362490453_o11424450_368755869989898_5862267321792316352_o