Susan brings extensive experience to her role as a client advocate attorney for the Schlitt Law Firm. She is a fierce advocate and thoughtful counselor who draws on her legal training and experience as a teacher to support clients and develop their cases.

Susan graduated from Hofstra Law School and is admitted to practice in New York. She has previously worked for Meyer Suozzi on major personal injury litigation and the Garden City firm Eisenberg & Margolis, LLP. Ms. Loucks is particularly well equipped to prepare client Investigative Reports and Case Assessments and to prepare rigorous legal pleadings. Clients appreciate Susan’s ability to communicate and educate them about their cases.

Prior to embarking on her legal career, Susan taught media studies, art and art history at Sacred Heart Academy in Hempstead, New York. She has also taught at St. Joseph’s College in Patchogue, New York.

Susan is an artist and photographer with a strong interest in food safety and its relation to animal rights. She is developing a practice within the Schlitt Law Firm devoted to food law.

Patty is truly our records maven: she has developed an expertise in all aspects of records management; she pursues her vocation with great zeal and is always willing to share her knowledge with others. Ms. Moore manages our medical records, Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) filings and requests for investigative records. She possesses the rare combination of precision and organization, understanding of our cases, mastery of public and private databases and persistence to obtain even the most difficult records. Her success in managing records enables us to develop our cases to the fullest extent possible and to move them as quickly as possible.

Prior to joining the Schlitt Law Firm, Patty served as a Direct Mail Manager for Antares Information Technologies for ten years. Previous to that experience, Patty she was the Operations Manager for Argus Research Corporation. She began her career as a computer programmer. Patty has an undergraduate degree from Cornell University. Go Big Red!

A couple living in Brooklyn endured leaking water into their kitchen and made multiple complaints to their landlord. Despite these complaints, the landlord failed to fix the problem. Ultimately, the leaks undermined the kitchen cabinets and one evening, the kitchen cabinets collapsed and fell on top of the woman, shattering her ankle.

Her father is a Manhattan attorney and asked us to represent her daughter. After investigating the case, we were able to settle the matter for $425,000. The money compensated this young woman, though it will never make right the permanent damage she suffered to her ankle.

Proving the Negligence of the Landlord

We argued that the cabinets collapsed due to the un-repaired leak and poor design and installation. The leak came from the roof. Whenever it snowed, the snow would stay on the roof and as it melted, would leak into the kitchen. After the first snowfall of the season, there was a leak in the kitchen.

The woman’s husband called the landlord and left a message about the leak. When he did not receive a response, the husband climbed onto the kitchen roof and cleared the area of melting snow. The landlord subsequently returned their call and assured them that he would address the problem.

A few weeks later, the leak returned. The couple again reported the leak to the landlord, who cleared the roof of more accumulated snow. The landlord again assured the couple that he would take care of the problem. The leak recurred and the kitchen cabinet fell from the wall injuring my client.

After the cabinets fell, a registered architect inspected the premises.

The architect found that:

• The roof had been improperly installed as it lacked flashing;
• The improper installation had led to a hole in the roof which allowed water to leak into the kitchen;
• The water damage caused by the hole in the roof undermined the back wood of the kitchen cabinets; and
• The fasteners used to attach the kitchen cabinet to the wall were inadequate for that purpose and the intended use.

We used the architect’s report, the prior complaints and the testimony of our client and her husband to build an overwhelming case of the landlord’s liability for this incident.

Settling this Premises Liability Injury Case

Once we were able to prove the liability of the landlord, we focused on the evaluating the damages suffered by our client. We collected her medical records and our team carefully assembled and analyzed them. We conducted extensive research to both prove the significance of the injuries. I did the case law research to identify similar cases with similar injuries so we could put the maximum value on the case. I then prepared our Case Assessment, a comprehensive document that analyzes and assesses liability and damages, puts a value on the case and outlines what the case would look like at trial and in settlement.

After reviewing the Case Assessment with my client, I presented the landlord’s insurance company with a Settlement Proposal. After negotiations, we were able to reach a settlement that offered good value for the case and pleased our client. We settled this landlord liability case for $425,000.

A New York woman slipped and fell on black ice at the pay station kiosk of a train station and injured her shoulder and back so badly that she required surgery on her neck. A physically active woman, she was devastated by these injuries. She asked us to get her compensation and to hold the negligent party responsible.

Metro North and their snow removal contractor pointed fingers at each other, so we filed a lawsuit against both. We demonstrated that Metro-North bore direct responsibility for the area around the pay station kiosk. Metro-North agreed to settle the case for $265,000.

The Facts of this Slip and Fall on Ice Case

On the morning of the incident, our client parked her car in a designated space in the public parking lot the Garrison train station. Following the posted instructions, she went to the pay station kiosk located on the sidewalk adjacent to the parking lot to pay the daily parking fee.

As she began to walk into the only entrance into the pay station kiosk, she slipped and fell on black ice covering the entrance way, striking her right shoulder and head on the pavement. By clutching onto the sides of the kiosk, she was able to pull herself up and pay the daily parking fee. She then walked to the station platform and boarded the 6:03 a.m. train to Grand Central Terminal.

After the accident, our client immediately felt pain in her right shoulder. During the train ride to Grand Central Terminal, she also began feeling pain in her right arm, neck and head. After she arrived at work in Manhattan, she told her co-workers about the accident.

She then called the Metro-North Police Department at Grand Central Terminal to report the accident. When she first called, she was instructed to return the call a half-hour later. When she called a second time, our client was instructed to telephone the Beacon office of the Metro North Police Department. Ultimately, an officer from the Metro-North Beacon base took the report.

In response to the woman’s report, an MTA Police Officer investigated the scene of the accident later that day. He noted a large shallow puddle directly in front of the parking pay station and noted that the recent large snowfall (three days earlier) had been followed by warm weather creating the puddle. The Police Officer also noted that during the early morning hours, the temperature had been in the teens/low 20’s with icing conditions that are “typical for the season”.

Determining Responsibility in this Slip & Fall Case

Metro-North controlled the property where our client fell, though they had a contract with a local snow removal company to clear ice and snow in the parking lot. By examining the contract and deposing witnesses from Metro-North and the snow removal company, we were able to show that Metro-North had responsibility for clearing the ice near the pay station kiosk. Therefore, they bore liability for our client’s injuries.

Negotiating a Settlement with Metro-North and Other Municipal Agencies

Once we determined liability and presented definitive evidence to Metro-North, we focused on the value of our client’s injuries. We collected all of her medical records and consulted with experts in the field. I prepared a detailed Case Assessment to review with my client.

The Case Assessment evaluates the liability of the defense, the value of the damages, and the current value of the case. It is an important document because it educates my clients about their case and provides the framework for both a potential settlement and a trial.

After reviewing the Case Assessment with my client and receiving her approval, I prepared a Settlement Package to send to Metro-North. Admitting their liability in this case and after some aggressive negotiations, Metro-North agreed to settle this case for $265,000. Our client took satisfaction in the compensation that she received and because we held Metro-North accountable for the damage they caused her.

The New York State Appellate Division upheld a lower court award of $560,000 to a girl who suffered multiple broken bones due to a defective stairway in a Bronx apartment building.

Carol L. Schlitt, who served as trial counsel to the Law Offices of Samuel J. Lurie, said, “This decision stands as a victory for all tenants. For too long, too many landlords have allowed their buildings to deteriorate at the expense of their tenants. This decision demonstrates that a failure to make small investments now will result in larger payments later.”

A four judge panel of the Appellate Division, First Department, decided the case, Rosario v. Carassone, et al. The defendants, who were absentee landlords, argued that the award was excessive. The appellate court affirmed the 2002 Bronx jury verdict by unanimously rejecting the defendants’ argument, writing in the decision, “The damage awards do not materially deviate from what is reasonable compensation under the circumstances.”
-
The case involved an October 1994 incident when a then 11 year-old Jennifer Rosario tripped on a broken step while leaving for school. Testimony at the trial reported the landlord had failed to repair the step for four years. Young Ms. Rosario suffered broken bones in her left leg and foot. The accident left her with enduring pain and her doctor testified that she would require surgery as an adult to address ongoing problems in her foot.

The jury deliberated for only one hour before returning an award on October 10, 2002 of $560,000. Ms. Schlitt said, “The jury’s decision reflected both the seriousness of Ms. Rosario’s injuries and the fact that the landlord had ignored basic repairs in the building.” The New York Jury Verdict Reporter listed this case as one of the top ten slip and fall awards for 2002.

During labor and delivery, doctors and nurses ignored fetal distress for 70 minutes causing hypoxia that resulted in brain damage. When first investigating the case, the records did not reveal this error. Depositions conducted by Martin Letowsky led to testimony that proved the resident physician in charge of the labor and delivery had altered the patient’s chart.

Once the actual events became clear, liability also became clear. The focus then became the damages suffered by the child and the financial needs that the child would face. The case resulted in a structured settlement for $23 million designed to fund the special medical care the child would require for the rest of his life.

On September 27, 2010, a Manhattan jury awarded Antonia Reyes $500,000 in compensation for the injuries she suffered when knocked down by a New York City Transit Authority bus. The jury made the award in the case Antonia Reyes v. New York City Transit Authority (Index No. 106304/05).

The case stemmed from a December 23, 2004 incident when Ms. Reyes, at the time a 74-year-old factory worker, crossed 181st Street at the intersection with St. Nicholas Avenue. As she reached the curb, the Bx3 bus pulled up to the intersection and hit Ms. Reyes. The impact, while not very hard, knocked Ms. Reyes to the ground.

While some passer-bys offered assistance, Ms. Reyes refused immediate medical attention. Ms. Reyes testified that the bus driver, who was a relief driver temporarily assigned to that route, asked her not to say anything because the bus driver would get in trouble.

Ms. Reyes arrived home in considerable pain. Her granddaughter immediately took Ms. Reyes to the emergency room at Montefiore Hospital. The emergency room examination revealed a possible fracture of the tibial plateau and extensive ligament and muscular damage to Ms. Reyes right knee. Doctors subsequently diagnosed severe osteoarthritis and an anterior cruciate ligament rupture that required knee replacement surgery.

New York City Transit Authority argued that the incident never happened. Ms. Reyes’ trial counsel, Carol L. Schlitt, used the testimony of Ms. Reyes, Ms. Reye’s granddaughter, the bus driver and New York City Transit records to prove her case. “The jury had to decide whom to believe and they obviously sided with Ms. Reyes,” explained Ms. Schlitt.

The defense also challenged the amount of the damages sought by the plaintiff. Ms. Schlitt used extensive medical evidence and the testimony of Ms. Reyes’ doctor to prevail with the jury. “The defense relied on two doctors who spent but a few minutes with my client and claimed to know enough to deny that her injuries were caused in this accident. Meanwhile, we had her doctor’s testimony and medical records for the years after this injury,” said Ms. Schlitt.

A New York City man crossing Third Avenue at 73rd Street was struck by a car and badly injured. The injured man retained the Schlitt Law Firm to represent him in an effort to collect compensation from the man who hit him and to protect his rights. We investigated the case and overcame the objections of the defendant to force an early settlement for the full insurance policy of $100,000. We settled the case in less than six months.

The Fact Pattern for this Pedestrian Accident

Our client had eaten dinner on the Upper East Side and walked along the north side of East 73rd Street towards Lexington Avenue. He crossed Third Avenue from the east side to the west side in the crosswalk on the north side of the intersection. According to a witness, our client began crossing when the light was green and he had a walk signal. He made it to the westernmost lane (left lane).

Meanwhile, the lights on the avenue began to change. The car driven by a man from Queens was traveling northbound on the avenue. He made no attempt to stop or avoid striking our client. He struck our client, sent him in the air and he landed on the ground. The ambulance report stated that our client flew at least 15 feet in the air.

Helping Our Client and Building the Case

Assisted by a friend, the injured man interviewed several law firms before selecting our firm. We immediately set to work to ensure that he received his full No Fault insurance benefits. We provided support for the man as he transferred from a hospital in Manhattan to a rehab facility.

The defendant initially blamed our client. The accident had wiped out our client’s memory of the events, so we had to build a case to demonstrate that the driver of the car bore responsibility for this incident. We started by retrieving the Police Report and seeking video cameras that might have filmed the accident. Our investigators took photographs of the scene and canvassed the area for witnesses, finding one who provided a statement. We also obtained the sequencing of the lights on Third Avenue. All of this evidence demonstrated the liability of the driver who struck our client.

To Settle or to Go to Trial in a New York City Car Crash Case?

Our client faced a dilemma in this case. Our analysis suggested this case could bring as much as a $1 million verdict in a trial. However, the driver only had a $100,000 insurance policy on the vehicle. We conducted an asset check of the defendant and found that he had limited income and assets to pay a court award beyond the insurance policy.

Our client had a choice: he could accept an immediate settlement paying the full amount of the insurance policy – in this case $100,000 – or we could go to trial. The wait for a trial could take three years. While there are always risks associated with going to trial, we could expect to win much more than the $100,000. We could then attach a judgment to the defendant’s income and assets to collect any award over $100,000. But if the defendant has limited income and assets, the ability to collect more money is reduced. In this case, we investigated the ability of the defendant to pay beyond the insurance policy and found that he had limited income and assets and no real ability to pay for damages.

In this case, our client decided to take the $100,000 insurance policy now rather than wait the three years for a trial at which it was unlikely that he could collect more than the $100,000 even if we won a $1 million verdict. We worked hard to ensure that the insurance company agreed to a rapid settlement.

At the Schlitt Law Firm, we commit ourselves to developing the case so we can maximize the compensation that our clients receive. We always present a trial assessment of each case and advise our clients on the advantages and disadvantages of settling a case or proceeding to trial. The decision to accept or reject a settlement always rests with our client. After all, we work for you and you make the decisions about your case.

I want to share some articles and links on taxis, livery cabs and limousines that might interest you.

The New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission hosts a website with many helpful articles. If you have a question, you can go to the website or use this page to contact them. You can file a complaint at this page. If you lost property in a cab, you can use this page to try to recover it.

Here are some additional articles about taxi cases in New York that you might find interesting:

The New York City Taxi Passenger Bill of Rights
New York Taxi Accidents – Holding Renegade Drivers Responsible for their Damaging Behavior
Ask Asa – Angry Cab Drivers Can Put Riders at Risk
Passenger Safety Tips from a Taxi Company
A Settlement for a Queens Woman Struck by a Livery Cab
A Settlement for a Woman Injured by a Taxi Driver in front of the Port Authority Terminal
A Settlement for a Pedestrian in Manhattan Struck by a Taxi
A Settlement for a Queens Husband and Wife Injured as Passengers in a Livery Cab

I want to share some articles and some links on pedestrian safety and pedestrian cases that might interest you:

Bicycle and Pedestrian Accident Hotspots in New York City

The New York City Pedestrian Safety and Action Plan

Pedestrian Accidents and Fatalities: Taking Steps to Keep Pedestrians Safe

Pedestrian Accidents and New York’s No-Fault Law

Are You the Victim of a Hit-and-Run Driver?

A Ruling on New York’s Emergency Doctrine: Sun Glare is Not an Emergency

Pedestrian Accidents: Building a Winning Case

Pedestrian Safety for Older New Yorkers

A List of the World’s Safest and Most Dangerous Cities for Pedestrians

Manhattan Jury Awards $500,000 for Pedestrian Hit by New York City Transit Bus

A Settlement for a Pedestrian in Manhattan Struck by a Taxi

A $100,000 Early Settlement for Man Struck by Car in New York City