Lynch Schwab Blog Recent Articles from Lynch Schwab en-us Thu, 17 Jan 2019 01:29:43 -0600 Elizaveta S. Korotkova joins Lynch Schwab & Gasparini PLLC Elizaveta graduated Pace Law School in 2010. Since then, she has practiced in the area of civil litigation before State and Federal Courts throughout New York and New Jersey. After law school, Elizaveta focused her practice on representing clients in professional and general casualty litigation matters, including defending insurance agents and brokers in negligence and breach of contract disputes, and handled appeals from inception to oral argument in the Appellate Division.

Today, Elizaveta concentrates on the defense of personal injury actions in both federal and New York courts.

2018-05-16 16:33:37
Caitriona Robbins joins Lynch Schwab & Gasparini PLLC Caitriona Robbins is an Associate in our White Plains and Hudson Valley offices. Caitriona received a B.S. in Political Science from Sacred Heart University in 2009, and earned a J.D. from Pace University School of Law in 2012.  She is a member of the New York State Bar Association and the Westchester Women’s Bar Association.

 Prior to joining the Firm, Caitriona worked in a Westchester law firm practicing exclusively in the area of civil litigation matters. She has handled all aspects of litigation, including depositions, motion practice and otherwise.

Caitriona is a native of Dutchess County, New York.

2018-03-07 08:54:21
Lynch Schwab & Gasparini obtains Defense Verdict at Trial On September 11, 2017, Louis U. Gasparini (Partner) obtained a defense verdict for a prestigious music school located in New York City. The plaintiff, Shaliner Ramoutar and her husband commenced an action alleging that the defendant was negligent in placing an 18 foot area rug within a classroom causing the plaintiff trip and fall during a music class for children. The area rug was placed on top of a wood floor (without non-slip backing) where the children would gather in a circle to participate.

The plaintiff was hired as a nanny to care for a child who attended the weekly music class.  Plaintiff claims that she tripped and fell on part of the rug that was allegedly bunched, landing on her left hand and shoulder. 

Testimony and evidence was heard at the trial from the teachers, the music school director together with liability experts.  

The plaintiff's counsel attempted to argue to the jury that the 18 foot area rug violated ASTM standards and was not slip resistant. The defendant’s argued the standards were not adopted by the NYC Administrative Code and that the area rug was safe and used without incident for approximately 20 years.

After deliberations, the Jury concluded within 20 minutes, that the defendants were not negligent.

Ramoutar v. The Diller-Quaile School of Music, Inc., (Supreme Court, Westchester County, New York) 

2017-10-04 21:38:27
Adrienne Odierna joins Lynch Schwab & Gasparini 2017-09-20 14:39:53 LYNCH SCHWAB & GASPARINI OBTAINS ORDER FROM THE APPELLATE DIVISION, SECOND DEPARTMENT EXPANDING STORM-IN-PROGRESS TO STRUCTURAL COLLAPSES FOR THE FIRST TIME In Baker v. St. Christopher’s Inn, the plaintiff claimed that he was injured when the roof of a maintenance shed collapsed while plaintiff was inside to retrieve a snow shovel.  A significant amount of snow had accumulated on the roof during the course of a snow storm.  Interestingly, there were “back to back” heavy snow storms which had blanketed the area with a significant amount of snow.  After the first snow storm passed, there was a lull before the second storm affected the region.

Plaintiff claimed that the storm-in-progress defense did not apply here, and that the collapse of the shed was not related to the snowfall which had previously fallen.  Plaintiff also claimed that after the first storm ended, the defendant should have removed the snow from the roof so as to prevent any potential collapses when the second storm passed through.

The lower court dismissed the plaintiff’s Complaint, finding that the storm-in-progress defense was applicable.  That ruling was sustained by the Appellate Division who likewise concluded “a lull in the storm does not impose a duty to remove the accumulation of snow or ice before the storm ceases in its entirety.”  Likewise, the Court held that the plaintiff’s attorney failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the precipitation from the storm in progress was not the cause of the accident, but instead our client had submitted admissible evidence, including the affidavit of a meteorologist and that of a licensed engineer, which demonstrated that the storm-in-progress defense was applicable.

Importantly, this ruling marks a major expansion of the storm-in-progress doctrine away from not only slip and fall accidents, but to structural collapses as well.  Prior to this ruling, the Appellate Divisions had never dismissed a plaintiff’s Complaint based upon the storm-in-progress doctrine because of a structural collapse.

Baker v. St. Christopher’s Inn, (Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department).

2016-07-19 10:27:25
New York City Reaches Historic $5.9 Million Settlement with Family of Eric Garner As a West Chester County accident law firm, our professional legal staff is equipped to help families navigate the murky waters of New York’s wrongful death laws. While pursuing legal action in the wake of a family tragedy may seem incomprehensible at the time, seeking redress to compensate for the all-encompassing loss of a loved one will reap enormous benefits in the end.

Take, for instance, the tragic and premature death of New York City’s Eric Garner – who is alleged to have been killed at the hands of over-zealous NYPD officers following a stop-and-frisk over possible illegal cigarette sales.

During the exchange, which was digitally recorded by several onlookers, the victim was quickly brought down by one officer using the chokehold technique. Despite informing the officer a recorded 11 times that he could not breathe, the victim eventually succumbed to the officer’s physical pressure, and was pronounced dead shortly thereafter.

In October, 2014, the victim’s family filed a Notice of Claim detailing their intentions to pursue a wrongful death action against New York City. On July 13, 2015, the city agreed to pay $5.9 million to the family in order to settle the allegations – an option often exercised by wrongful death defendants in order to avoid the protracted publicity and expense of a trial.

The family also received an undisclosed settlement amount from the Richmond University Medical Center, which first responded to the scene.

Wrongful Death in New York

From a policy perspective, wrongful death actions are designed to help ensure responsible defendants do not evade liability merely due to the fact the victim is dead and no longer able to initiate a claim for compensation. Accordingly, the law allows for the victim’s estate – through its personal representative (i.e., executor) – to file on behalf of the family, which may be entitled to damages for any of the following:

  • Funeral, burial, cremation and/or memorial service expenses
  • Medical expenses related to the decedent’s final illness or injury
  • Loss of relationship between the decedent and the surviving immediate family members
  • Loss of income provided by the victim to the surviving family members
  • Value of the parental relationship lost between the victim and minor children
  • Compensation for the victim’s pain and suffering

As your Westchester County wrongful death attorney will also explain, New York law requires the victim’s estate to file its claims within two years of the victim’s date of death – otherwise, the claim is barred under the statute of limitations.

Unlike many other states, there are no opportunities under New York law to “toll” the statute, and the two-year deadline is a definitive cutoff date for a successful wrongful death action.

Contact Our West Chester County Accident Law Firm Today

If you are currently in the aftermath of an unexpected loss, we encourage you to consider the benefits of a wrongful death lawsuit against the individual(s) responsible for your loved one’s passing. To get started, please contact Lynch, Schwab & Gasparini, PLLC at 914-304-4353.

2015-08-31 10:56:40
Wal-Mart Faces Discrimination Lawsuits for Denying Benefits to Same-Sex Spouses In recent years, advocates for the LGBT community have helped make great strides against employment discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender and marital status.

Nonetheless, there is still work to be done, and a burgeoning class action against the Wal-Mart corporation highlights the possibly discriminatory policies with regard to employee leave, short-term disability, and similar benefits allegedly denied same-sex spouses.

According to the details released so far, the representative plaintiff was working as an office associate at a Wal-Mart in Massachusetts – a state which has recognized same-sex marriage since 2003. Allegedly, the plaintiff was unable to procure healthcare coverage for her partner – despite being legally married since 2004 – due to Wal-Mart’s policy against offering insurance to same-sex spouses.

From 2012-2014, the plaintiff’s partner endured the effects of aggressive ovarian cancer and was required to obtain a separate insurance policy to cover the costs of her care, which resulted in a much higher premium and deductible than would have been available through her spouse’s plan.

Of course, a resolution to a matter of this magnitude is far off, however the case brings to light a myriad of issues that are likely to develop following the Supreme Court’s historic decisions in both Obergefell v. Hodges and Windsor v. United States.

Namely, federal courts have yet to decide a direct claim alleging intrusion upon religious freedom versus the fundamental right to marry – a case which is sure to bring about unprecedented contentious involvement from proponents on both sides of the issue.

For now, however, the law is clear: employers cannot discriminate against those in a same-sex marriage regardless of corporate policy or opposing viewpoints. Therefore, any worker facing this type of issue should consider speaking with a White Plains discrimination lawyer right away.

Launch a Benefits Discrimination Claim

As was the case in the upcoming class against Wal-Mart, the plaintiff began her litigation by filing a claim with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). In most cases, litigants with an employment discrimination claim must first present their grievance to the EEOC prior to initiating a lawsuit in federal court.

At this preliminary stage, the EEOC will review the allegations, speak with the parties, and attempt to arrange a settlement or agreement on the issues. If that proves futile, it will issue a “Right to Sue” letter, which essentially provides the plaintiff with permission to begin the federal district court litigation process.

A wrongful denial of benefits claim would generally fall within the following categories of law:

 The Civil Rights Act of 1964, which protects against sex-based discrimination
 The Equal Pay Act, which requires equal pay for equal work
 State employment fairness laws, which in this case fall under the Massachusetts Fair Employment Practices Act

Depending on the nature of the claims, denial of benefits allegations could also fall under a wide range of other laws, particularly if the denial is based on race, religion, or a similar protected personal factor.

Contact Our White Plains Discrimination Lawyers For Help

If you are concerned about a recent denial or reduction of benefits at your job and would like to discuss your rights with a knowledgeable attorney, please do not hesitate to contact Lynch, Schwab & Gasparini, PLLC by calling 914-304-4353.

2015-08-28 13:59:04
Driverless Cars & Personal Injury: Who’s at Fault? With driver-assistance technologies emerging as the latest competitive edge between auto makers, it stands to reason that driverless cars cannot be too far off the horizon. While this notion is still just beginning to take hold of the tech sector, it behooves those in the active practice of managing, mitigating and minimizing risk to consider the personal injury and negligence implications of an auto collision involving one or more computer-operated driving machines.

The concept of driver-assistance began with the novel idea of the back-up camera: practical, helpful and not too overpowering of the driver’s own instincts. From there, however, we see the introduction of self-adjusting mirrors, automatic brakes and even cars that can parallel park themselves.

Nonetheless, the doctrine of negligence is based upon the notion that a person either commits – or fails to commit – an act that results in injury to another person or property, and the law has a long way to go to catch up to the idea that vehicles can now “think” for themselves and respond to outside stimuli according to their own pre-programmed understanding of how roadways work.

As driverless cars transition from something of science fiction to a burgeoning reality, we ought to carefully consider the obvious: In the event of an accident, whose fault it is anyway?

Tech-savvy Automaker Takes a Shot at It

Technologically-savvy Tesla, Inc. – fittingly based in Silicon Valley, California – has come up with a few options for those who are kept up at night by the idea of a computer riding parallel on I-95 at 70 miles per hour. For instance, its newer models come equipped with a driverless option for passing a slower motorist on a multi-lane highway – which allows the driver to initiate the navigation by simply engaging the turn signal.

However, it is that latter detail -- requiring the engagement of the turn signal prior to the maneuver -- that Tesla believes will help keep liability right where it belongs: with the driver. In other words, the simple movement of illuminating the turn signal requires the forethought of the driver, and can result in liability if the maneuver results in a collision.

Still a Long Way to Go

Despite a few novel ideas hitting the pavement, the concept of a totally driverless vehicle will be met with untold pushback from state and federal regulatory agencies, as well as safety advocacy groups concerned with the reliability of onboard software – and the potential for increased vulnerability from a security standpoint. What’s more, automakers will – at least at the outset – have to consider the likelihood of a significant rise in product liability actions following any auto collision involving a driverless vehicle.

With the amount of technology in play and the complexity of the software needed to accomplish the task of safely traveling from Point A to Point B, the driverless model will likely not hit the mainstream car lot for years to come – which may be a welcomed delay for the many Westchester County car accident attorneys dreading the unpredictable intersection of machinery and mayhem.

Contact a Westchester County Lawyer as Soon as Possible

If you were recently injured in an auto accident and would like to speak to a reputable and experienced personal injury attorney, please contact Lynch Schwab & Gasparini as soon as possible by calling 914-304-4353.

2015-07-22 14:50:13
New York Court of Appeals Emphasizes Importance of Reliable Evidence in Injury Cases When it comes to a car accident case, the keystone of a successful verdict or settlement is reliable, thorough and definitive medical evidence supporting the injury claim. In most instances, this is achieved by working with medical experts familiar with the plaintiff’s affliction(s), who are then called to testify as to the impact of the victim’s injuries on his or her lifelong prognosis.

Verdicts in severe injury cases can be extremely high, usually due to the calculation of the lifetime effect of the injury and whether the victim will be permanently disabled. Accordingly, plaintiffs seeking recovery must meet the definition of a “serious injury” as provided in Insurance Law § 5104(a) & (b), which requires the plaintiff to show his or her injuries meet or exceed $50,000 in economic loss and resulted in at least one of the following:

 Death
 Dismemberment, or significant dismemberment
 Fracture
 Loss of a fetus
 Permanent loss of an organ, member, function or system, or a permanent consequential limitation
 Significant limitation of a bodily function
 A non-permanent injury that prevents the victim from performing material daily activities for 90 days or more within the 180 days immediately following the date of the injury.

Under these requirements, a plaintiff whose case does not meet the criteria will likely face dismissal on summary judgment, as is the situation in the case detailed below.

Plaintiff Unable to Meet Evidentiary Standard in Alvarez v. NYLL Management Ltd.

In 2014, the New York Supreme Court dismissed a personal injury case involving a motor vehicle accident wherein the plaintiff failed to show any genuine factual dispute of the existence of a serious injury as defined above. In other words, the evidence to support a finding of serious injury was so sparse, the court determined it would have been impossible for a reasonable jury to find in plaintiff’s favor.

In Alvarez, the plaintiff endured a car accident, which allegedly caused injury to her right shoulder, right knee and neck. She then initiated a personal injury lawsuit against the other party involved in the collision and asserted that her injuries – while not permanent in nature – met the standard set forth above in that she was rendered substantially limited for at least 90 days following the accident.

At trial, the plaintiff introduced testimony by an orthopedist, who actually found that the plaintiff had full range of motion in all affected body parts. Moreover, the plaintiff’s orthopedist and treating physician both found that the plaintiff’s injuries were degenerative in nature – citing a documented onset of arthritis in the plaintiff’s medical reports. In addition, the court noted a lack of testimony by either doctor as to whether the plaintiff’s degenerative conditions contributed to – or were aggravated by – the alleged injuries sustained in the auto accident.

In sum, the court dismissed the case for lack of disputable evidence and reiterated the importance of meeting the “serious injury” classifications outlined in the New York Insurance Law code.

Knowledgeable and Experienced Brewster Car Accident Lawyers are Ready to Help

If you were recently injured in an auto accident and would like to discuss your rights, we encourage you to contact Lynch, Schwab & Gasparini, PLLC today by calling 914-304-4353.

2015-07-08 12:49:35
NYC Mayor Implements ‘Undercover Applicant’ Initiative to Combat Employment Discrimination The concept of employment discrimination covers a broad range of acts across the entire employment process – from initial application to termination and appeal. Employment discrimination is considered any adverse treatment against an employee or potential employee based solely on that employee’s membership in a protected class.

In New York, it is illegal to refuse employment to an applicant based on any of the following reasons:

 Race
 Color
 National origin
 Religion
 Sex, pregnancy, childbirth, and related conditions
 Disability, including use of a service animal
 Age (40 and older)
 Citizenship status
 Genetic information
 Marital status
 Sexual orientation
 Lawful activities outside the workplace
 Military status
 Observance of Sabbath
 Political involvement
 Criminal charges (not necessarily convictions)
 Status as a survivor of domestic violence

While a potential employer is permitted to refuse employment to a member of a historically underserved class, the reason for the denial must be grounded in an issue with the candidate’s employment history, qualifications, attributes or references – not his or her personal identity.

Nonetheless, New York City officials believe the practice of employment discrimination – particularly in the application stage – is alive and well and they have implemented a program to hopefully put a stop to this illegal misconduct.

Undercover Agents From the Human Rights Commission to Detect Discrimination

In April, 2015, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio signed into law a bill requiring agents from the Human Rights Commission to send out a certain number of fake job applications to companies looking to hire. Using a technique known as “matched-pair testing,” two equally-credentialed applicants will apply for the same position, with one belonging to a protected class of individuals.

The test will be to see which of the applicants the employer chooses and why – with a possible $25,000 fine awaiting any employer who cannot articulate a reason for disqualifying the minority candidate.

The program expects to conduct at least five tests per year but agents are permitted to engage in more if certain industries or businesses are known to be repeat offenders. In a unique paradigm shift, the Commission hopes to bait discriminating employers at the outset rather than handle claims of discrimination after the fact.

Fortunately, it has retained a number of former undercover police officers to handle the “stings,” and funding for the Commission has increased 25 percent to cover the cost of the program.

A statement by the Commission noted that “[we support] efforts to increase awareness of New Yorkers' rights and responsibilities under the New York City Human Rights Law, which prohibits discrimination in housing, public accommodations and employment for many protected categories….It's critical for business owners, employers and housing providers to understand their obligations under the law, and for job and housing applicants to know their rights and how to avail [themselves] of the law's protections."

Contact Lynch, Schwab & Gasparini Today!

If you are facing a difficult employment discrimination issue at your workplace or were recently denied a job for which you felt qualified, you may be able to launch an employment discrimination claim under New York’s favorable anti-discrimination laws. For more information, contact one of our Westchester County employment discrimination lawyers at Lynch, Schwab & Gasparini today by calling 914-304-4353.

2015-06-24 10:11:17
Family of New Yorker Killed in Auto vs. Train Crash Prepares for Wrongful Death Lawsuit, Facts May Present a Problem In the early morning hours of February 3, 2015, a horrific tragedy struck the town of Mount Pleasant as a 49-year old mother of three was fatally stricken by an oncoming Metro-North train en route from New York City. In addition, several passengers onboard the train also met their untimely deaths that fateful evening – resulting in a total fatality count of six adults.

According to eyewitnesses, an SUV became sandwiched between the arms of the railroad crossing warning system with virtually no time to react as the train came “immediately upon the vehicle.”

Consequently, the family of the driver has commenced a personal injury lawsuit against the town of Mount Pleasant, the State of New York, the Metropolitan Transit Authority and the County of Westchester – all alleging a faulty and unreasonably dangerous railroad warning system that directly caused the death of the on-track victim and several other commuters on the train.

However, others have revealed a potential issue with the events leading up to the collision which may work to reduce the family’s recovery amount – or eliminate it all together.

Wrongful Death Following an Auto Accident in Westchester County

Under New York’s laws of wrongful death, surviving family members can recover for the actual costs of a victim’s final injury or illness, including medical expenses, funeral and burial costs. In addition, certain immediate family members may be able to recover for the loss of relationship, companionship, mentorship and love due to the unexpected death of their child, parent or spouse.

In all instances, the personal representative of the estate must file the lawsuit on behalf of heirs and beneficiaries. The claims must be filed within two years of the date of death and this time limit is essentially without exception.

Comparative Negligence in New York

The facts surrounding the above-described tragic Westchester County accident are not without controversy and a legal concept known as comparative negligence may be a factor in the family’s recovery.

According to several other eyewitnesses who have recounted their stories to the media, the driver of the vehicle allegedly drove onto the tracks – becoming entrenched between the crossing arms – only after attempting to quickly maneuver past the warnings once the lights had engaged.

In so doing, one arm allegedly struck the rear of her vehicle, at which point she is believed to have exited the vehicle to check the damage. She is then alleged to have returned to the vehicle, attempted to drive forward, attempted to reverse, and was at that point unable to escape the impact of the incoming train.

In New York, a plaintiff who has in some way contributed to his or her own resulting injuries could face a reduction in compensation that matches the extent of the involvement.

In New York, which is known as a “pure comparative fault” state, plaintiffs may be at fault in their own accident to any degree up to 99 percent. The conclusion of this case will be an interesting measure of the effects of comparative fault, if applicable, and its impact on the family’s total recovery.

Contact a Reputable Westchester County Auto Accident Law Firm Right Away

If you are in search of a reputable personal injury lawyer in Westchester County, Lynch Schwab & Gasparini can offer unparalleled representation with unmatched experienced. To get started, call 914-304-4353.   

2015-06-10 13:33:20
Detecting Discrimination in a Non-Compete Agreement – What Can You Do About It? A non-compete or non-competition agreement is a contract between an employer and his employee that limits the potential business activities of the employee upon the conclusion of the employment relationship.

In most cases, non-compete agreements will include both a temporal and geographic limitation restricting the employee from engaging in a substantially similar trade (i.e., stealing clientele) within a certain area for a certain amount of time. Non-compete agreements are often challenged in court, and for good reason.

Sometimes, non-compete agreements are upheld – provided the terms are reasonable. Oftentimes, however, these agreements are deemed unenforceable, usually for including unreasonably restrictive terms or other violations of public policy.

In all instances, a discriminatory non-compete agreement will be considered unenforceable. However, discrimination in this context is not always easy to detect, and White Plains discrimination lawyers can help you determine if your particular agreement contains elements of discriminatory restrictions.

Detecting Discrimination in a Non-Compete Agreement

As mentioned above, a general non-compete agreement imposing reasonable time and place restrictions on future trade activities will likely be upheld upon challenge. However, one of the key components to look for in determining if an agreement is possibly discriminatory is whether all other employees in comparable positions are presented with the same set of restrictions.

If certain employees – measured along distinguishable race, sex or other protected classifications – are given less restrictive covenants (or none at all), your employer might be engaging in unlawful discrimination.

Another subtle discrimination technique involves selective enforcement standards apparently targeting certain former employees.

If, for example, restrictive covenants are only truly enforced against former male employees or employees belonging to a certain national origin, this type of agreement will be unenforceable upon challenge and the employer will likely face civil liability for engaging in adverse action based on an employee’s membership in a protected class.

Examples of Unenforceable Non-Compete Clauses

New York courts will carefully scrutinize a non-compete agreement to ensure it is fair and not unduly prejudicial against the employee. This concept is then balanced with the employer’s legal protections against the unlawful dissemination of trade secrets and loss of special or extraordinary trade secrets. The following provides details into most New York courts’ leanings when determining the propriety of a non-compete clause:

  • Most courts consider a duration of six months or less to be reasonable. Any longer, and the court will require an explanation as to why the prolonged restriction is necessary.
  • Overly-broad geographic limitations (e., beyond 50 miles) are often stricken. However courts are cognizant of developments of technology allowing for greater commercial reach, and have allowed broader restrictions in certain cases.
  • Whether the employment relationship was terminated by the employer or employee is irrelevant.
  • Courts may remove certain aspects of a non-compete agreement that are too far-reaching while leaving the remaining language intact.

Contact Lynch Schwab & Gasparini Today!

If you are concerned over your non-compete agreement, or are considering leaving your job for a competitor, please contact our attorneys for more information about your rights. To schedule a consultation, call (914) 304-4353 today.

2015-05-27 09:23:32
Five Procedural Issues Common in Commercial Trucking Accidents An accident with a big rig is a big deal – and enduring this kind of collision can leave lasting effects, both physical and emotional. If you are reeling from a recent truck accident in the Westchester County area, our lawyers can help you navigate through the procedural issues that typically arise in personal injury actions – which can be especially complex if a commercial freightliner was involved in the wreck.

The following are the top five procedural issues likely to arise in your truck accident claim:

#5:  Choosing a Venue: Venue can be a minor issue or a major battle, depending upon the goals and intentions of the defendant. If a defendant is unhappy with the plaintiff’s particular choice of court, it may motion for a change of venue – but it must do so in its initial filing or the objection is considered waived. Changes of venue can be from state to federal court, as well as from one county or jurisdiction to another.

#4:  Choosing the Defendant(s): This issue is particularly unique to cases involving commercial trucking outfits because plaintiffs can not only sue the individual driver involved in the crash, but also the driver’s employer under the doctrine of vicarious liability.

If the evidence uncovered shows that the driver may have been pushed to drive beyond the number of hours allowed under federal law or the employer has not properly maintained the vehicle, your truck accident lawyer could successfully obtain a verdict or settlement from the driver’s employer – which will likely have much deeper pockets than the driver himself.

#3:  Meeting Deadlines: Civil litigation is under a strict timeline, otherwise cases would drag on for years. Once a plaintiff files his complaint, he must serve the defendant(s) with notice of the lawsuit right away. Once served, the defendant has 30 days to file a response – or 45 days if it plans to raise certain defenses. From there, discovery deadlines and pretrial matters will be closely regulated to ensure a swift and efficient resolution to the matter.

#2:  Disclosing Evidence: Once your case makes it past the inevitable defense motion for summary judgment, your lawyers will be ready to begin the discovery process, which involves the mutual exchange of evidence between the parties.

The parties must answer lists of questions about the incident and resulting injuries (known as interrogatories), produce relevant non-privileged documents and participate in depositions allowing both parties to ask and answer questions under oath. The process can be long, but discovery is truly the only way to ensure a fair and accurate trial.

#1:  To Appeal or Not to Appeal: Appealing a verdict is an individual decision each plaintiff must make with his truck accident lawyers, and an appeal is often necessary if certain issues arose at trial that were improperly handled by the court. By contrast, a party may opt not to appeal if the evidence is highly skewed in favor of the successful party. 

Contact the Experienced Westchester County Truck Accident Lawyers at Lynch Schwab & Gasparini

If you are considering a lawsuit following your recent truck accident, we encourage you to contact Lynch Schwab & Gasparini right away. To set up an appointment, please call (914) 304-4353.

2015-05-13 11:34:30
Cosmetic Medical Procedures: Defending Against Malpractice Claims According to the American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS), the vast majority of medical malpractice claims made against practitioners arise from the aesthetic and elective component of practice. While this can be frustratingly-subjective for both new and experienced cosmetic surgeons, a Westchester County personal injury lawyer can help combat against these allegations and preserve hard-earned reputations in the process.

What’s more, our attorneys can help work through malpractice allegations involving non-elective reconstructive procedures and other serious contentions by patients claiming a deviation from practice standards.

Legal Practice Standards in Cosmetic Surgery

Medical malpractice is a legal term referring to a doctor’s departure from accepted medical standards within his or her specific industry. More specifically, a cosmetic surgeon may face liability for failing to use a “reasonable degree of skill, learning, and care” expected within the cosmetic surgery field.

Historically, doctors were held to a standard of care congruent with practices within their particular community. In other words, small town doctors were held to one standard, while urban doctors held to another.

Under today’s modern standards, however, all cosmetic surgeons are expected to adhere to the same standard of care, which requires regular continuing education and a dedication to keeping abreast of changes in the cosmetic surgery field.

Practical Considerations for the Cosmetic Surgery Practitioner

The legal framework for medical malpractice may be difficult to follow at first, but implementing routine practice procedures to avoid potential liability can be a preventative way to avoid unnecessary exposure.

For instance, cosmetic surgeons providing up-front, honest and clear communication about what a patient can expect from a procedure beforehand can help manage expectations afterwards. Many practitioners utilize digital software and imaging technologies to project the likely “after” pictures to patients considering various elective procedures.

Along these same lines, informed consent is the hallmark of a comprehensive liability-avoidance plan. Informed consent involves clear and thorough communication of both the risks and benefits of a procedure, explained in a way that an adult patient can understand and make a fully-informed decision.

In some cases, practitioners who omit the possibility of certain risks face lawsuits from plaintiffs who experience unexpected side effects – effects that are so severe the patient would not have elected the surgery in the first place. Of course, informed consent should always be reduced to writing with both physician and patient signatures clearly in place.

Lastly, the ASPS recommends implementing a degree of patient selection criteria, primarily focusing on avoiding those patients with a strong risk for litigation. Patients with whom the practitioner feels uncomfortable or those who routinely “surgeon shop” for elective procedures are more likely to cause conflict, while those with strong motivations for the procedure, clearly-communicated goals and realistic expectations are more likely to experience satisfaction with their procedure.

Contact Lynch Schwab Gasparini for Malpractice Defense Today!

If you are facing a malpractice claim from a former patient, or are interested in learning ways to avoid malpractice in the future, please contact the personal injury lawyers of Lynch Schwab Gasparini today by calling (914) 304-4353.

2015-04-22 08:33:54
On Thin Ice: Know Your Slip-and-Fall Rights in the Following Scenarios It’s cold, windy and treacherous outside. En route from your favorite department store, you suddenly find yourself face-to-face with the ice-covered pavement in front of the store – and are in need of serious orthopedic rehabilitation for the next several weeks to heel your injured ankle. Who is responsible in this situation? The department store? The snow removal company? The local municipality?

Every slip-and-fall scenario is comprised of its own unique set of facts and the following examples may help highlight your rights in the event you are injured after taking a tumble while walking outside. As always, if you were recently injured in a slip-and-fall accident, be sure to call the Westchester County slip and fall attorneys of Lynch Schwab & Gasparini right away.

Scenario #1:  The Apartment Sidewalk: Joanne, a tenant at a high-rise, privately owned apartment building, breaks her wrist after falling on a patch of ice immediately outside the front door of her building. Upon further inspection, it does not appear that salt or any other traction agent was applied to the area. Does Joanne have a case?

Attorney:  Most likely, Joanne has a slip and fall case against the property manager, landlord and/or owner of the building. Landlords have a duty to maintain common areas to ensure safety and security of tenants and their guests. In an area like Westchester County, which is frequently blanketed with snow and ice in the winter months, it is reasonable for tenants to expect the landlord to regularly apply melting or traction agents like salt to ensure the safety of those walking by.

Scenario #2:  The Grocery Store: Daniel is grocery shopping when, all of a sudden, he slips on a clear substance on the floor. On the way down, he grabs an adjacent aisle display, which also falls on top of him, injuring his nose. Upon further inspection, Daniel concludes the substance is melted vanilla ice cream. Can Daniel recover for these injuries?

Attorney:  In all likelihood, Daniel can recover from the store owner/parent company for the costs of his injuries. In a quintessential example of premises liability, Daniel has entered the grocery store as a business guest, and is therefore afforded the highest level of protection from hazards on the property.

Shop owners have a duty to regularly inspect the store for problems, and must either immediately remedy the situation or place unambiguous warnings adjacent to the problem to keep shoppers safe. In this example, the ice cream was clearly on the ground for some time – allowing it to melt – and the store owner should have cleaned up the mess much more quickly.

Scenario #3:  A Friend’s Driveway:  Teresa is invited to her next door neighbor’s house during a snowstorm to catch up on their favorite television show. On the way down her friend’s driveway, Teresa slips on a patch of ice and falls to the ground. Can Teresa sue her friend for her injuries?

Attorney:  Maybe. In this scenario, Teresa is a social guest, and the landowner (her friend) owes her a duty to warn of known dangers on the property. However, at the same time, Teresa has a duty to exercise her own level of care and caution when walking in a snowstorm, and may have assumed the risk of hitting an icy patch during a storm.

Scenario #4:  The Home Improvement Store:   Leonard enters his local home improvement warehouse to purchase some lumber for a doghouse he plans to build in the backyard. In the lumber aisle, a four-foot red and white stop sign is propped at both ends, accompanied by a message directing shoppers to seek the help of an associate before making any selections.

Thinking he only needs a couple 2’ x 4’s, Leonard enters the aisle – and immediately slips on a thin layer of sawdust on the floor. On the way down, he bumps his head on the metal shelf, causing severe head trauma. Can he recover from the store for his injuries?

Attorney:  Probably not. In this scenario, Leonard amounts to a trespasser in the lumber aisle, and was expressly prohibited from entering that area of the store. Presumably, the store concluded that the sawdust on the floor would make it too dangerous for shoppers to enter the area unsupervised, and it issued a warning stating as such. By ignoring the warning, Leonard also likely precluded himself from a slip and fall recovery.

Contact Lynch Schwab & Gasparini Today!

If you were recently injured in a slip and fall accident and would like to speak to a reputable slip and fall lawyer, please contact Lynch Schwab and Gasparini by calling (914) 304-4353.

2015-04-08 09:26:49
SUMMARY JUDGMENT GRANTED TO LYNCH SCHWAB & GASPARINI CLIENT, A ROCKLAND COUNTY STRIP MALL OWNER In Harracksingh v. Bed Bath & Beyond and Milbrook Properties, Ltd. the plaintiff claimed that she was injured after tripping over a metal bar which was part of a cart corral in the defendant’s mall parking lot.  She further alleged that the metal bar was not adequately secured to the asphalt, thus allowing the bar to become a tripping hazard.  The Court found that Lynch Schwab had proven their client did not own, control or construct the shopping cart corral, and as such did not owe the plaintiff a duty of care.  The Court also found that a store tenant was the party which constructed the cart corral and was responsible for maintaining it and, as such, was the proper defendant in the lawsuit.

Harracksingh v. Bed Bath & Beyond and Milbrook Properties, Ltd. (Supreme Court, Rockland County).

2015-04-06 17:32:46
SUMMARY JUDGMENT GRANTED TO LYNCH SCHWAB & GASPARINI CLIENT In May of 2014, Lynch Schwab obtained summary judgment on behalf of their client, Chapel Hill Condominium, in a personal injury lawsuit.  The plaintiff sustained a severe, fractured elbow resulting in surgery with insertion of pins and metal plate as a result of a fall from a dance floor.  In obtaining summary judgment, Lynch Schwab successfully argued that the height differential of the dance floor from the ground floor constituted a “trivial defect” and that the dance floor was not defective or dangerous.

Witt v. Chapel Hill Condominium (Supreme Court, Westchester County).

2015-04-06 17:31:51
SUMMARY JUDGMENT GRANTED TO LYNCH SCHWAB & GASPARINI In February of 2015, Lynch Schwab successfully had a personal injury lawsuit dismissed at the summary judgment stage.  The plaintiff was injured during the course of a basketball practice when he stepped on a net located in the out-of-bounds area while chasing a basketball.  The settlement demand was $700,000.00.  In its motion papers, Lynch Schwab argued that the doctrine of primary assumption of risk applied and that the net itself was an open and obvious condition to the game of basketball. 

Schutzman v. GSM at West Rock, LLC (Rockland County). Neimark & Neimark, New City, New York, for the Plaintiff.

2015-04-06 16:25:34
APPELLATE DIVISION REVERSES LOWER COURT, DISMISSING CASE AGAINST LYNCH SCHWAB & GASPARINI CLIENT On March 4, 2015, the Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department issued a decision in the matter of Cvijenovich v. Beacon Kids Wresting Club, et al., reversing a lower court and dismissing the plaintiffs’ Complaint against Lynch Schwab & Gasparini client, USA Wrestling, Inc. and the Beacon Kids Wrestling Club.

The facts of this claim involved a 13 year old wrestler, who was participating in an extracurricular wrestling tournament run by the Beacon Kids Wrestling Club.  The player was slammed to the ground by his opponent, sustaining a significant injury to his shoulder.  Plaintiff had alleged that the injury was caused by the negligence of the defendants in increasing certain risks which were associated with wrestling.  While plaintiff was successful at the lower court, the Appellate Division reversed that decision, finding that the complaint should have been dismissed.  All inferences in favor of the plaintiff, there could be no viable cause of action sustained against the Wrestling Club or promoter.

Cvijenovich v. Beacon Kids Wresting Club, et al., (Supreme Court, Dutchess County).  Willentz, Goldman & Spitzer, New York, NY, for the plaintiff.

2015-04-06 16:24:36
LYNCH SCHWAB & GASPARINI OBTAINS DEFENSE VERDICT AT TRIAL On January 30, 2015, Louis U. Gasparini (Partner) obtained a defense verdict for Simply the Best Homecare, LLC in a purported defamation claim.  The plaintiff, Sgt. Edward Ryan and his parents had alleged that Simply the Best had defamed them in a writing published to the Department of Veterans Affairs and, more particularly, the Albany Veterans Hospital.  The plaintiffs in the lawsuit attempted to argue to the jury that the contents of the letter, observations made by several home health aides in the Ryan home, were untrue and fabricated.  To the contrary, however, the jury concluded that the contents of the subject letter were not defamatory, thus finding in favor of Simply the Best.

            Testimony and evidence was heard at the trial from home health aides who were unable to continue working at the Ryan home.  Likewise, there was proof offered that aides felt uncomfortable in the home and that Simply the Best was unable to continue to maintain 24 hours per day, seven days per week home health care within their current staffing levels.

            Following deliberations, the jury unanimously concluded that the subject letter was not defamatory.

Ryan v. Simply the Best Homecare, LLC, et al., (Supreme Court, Warren County, New York).  Berger & Kernan, P.C., Clifton Park, NY, for the plaintiff.

2015-04-06 16:23:46
Employee Credit Checks: How Does New York Score? According to statistics, nearly half of all U.S. employers rely on the information contained within a candidate’s credit report when making hiring decisions, regardless of whether the position actually requires strong credit or is even remotely related to the financial industry.

In response to this phenomenon, advocates in New York City and many other jurisdictions are urging lawmakers to pull back the reins on employers’ ability to run credit checks on candidates for a job – except where required by law (e.g., mortgage lenders or financial sector employees).

The purpose of the limitations is to address major collateral disparities occurring by minority populations who are being unfairly targeted by the existence of a mediocre or poor credit history. In fact, in January, 2015, the Coalition to Stop Credit Checks in Employment issued an open letter to New York City Mayor De Blasio and the New York City Council urging the community leaders to enact municipal legislation ending the practice and the unfair discrimination that inevitably stems therefrom.

Employment Discrimination Through Unnecessary Credit Checks

With the exception of certain employment positions directly related to handling, lending, or investing money, the Coalition points out that the vast majority of jobs – and the excellent performance thereof – do not depend whatsoever on the status of the employee’s credit history report. Several positions were highlighted by the advocacy group as being unaffected by the results of a credit check, including:

  • Employees tasked with handling valuable goods, property or large sums of cash. According to reports from agencies responsible for issuing credit reports and histories, “we don’t have any research to show any statistical correlation between what’s in somebody’s credit report and their job performance or their likelihood to commit fraud.”
  • Employees seeking management positions. Again, denying a management position to an employee with a less-than-stellar credit report unfairly burdens those minority populations who are more likely to have weaker credit scores, thereby limiting upward mobility in marginalized groups.
  • Employees seeking law enforcement and security positions. There is no empirical evidence to suggest that the results of a credit report are in any way related to the candidate’s ability to perform his or her job honestly and with integrity.

Status of Anti-Credit Check Laws in New York

In the New York state legislature, several credit check bills have made their way through the Assembly and Senate, however there are no current statutes to address the situation. The contents of one bill that passed the New York state assembly (but subsequently died in the Senate) made it unlawful for any employer to run a credit check on an employee unless otherwise required by law.

Likewise, the status of employee credit check restrictions in New York City has yet to be determined, however advocacy groups have fought to bring the issues to the forefront, highlighting the overt discriminatory nature of the practice, as well as the blatant breach of privacy and confidentiality inherent in reviewing a candidate’s credit history report.

Federal regulations, which of course apply to all states as well, say employers are permitted to run a credit check on potential employees, provided the employee is given notice of the impending credit inquiry during the hiring process.

Enduring Employment Discrimination? Contact Lynch Schwab Today!

At Lynch Schwab, our Westchester County employee discrimination  lawyers can help you overcome the inequities of employment discrimination, including discriminatory practices in the hiring phase. For more information about how our Westchester County law office can help, call (914) 304-4353. 

2015-03-25 08:41:01
The Basics of Language Discrimination Following Recent NYC Transit Authority Lawsuit In a recent lawsuit filed by five non-English speaking plaintiffs against the New York City Transit Authority, allegations of unlawful discrimination and unequal treatment have highlighted an emerging trend in America’s most diverse city: language discrimination.

The concept of language discrimination involves any mistreatment, inequality, or unequal access to resources against individuals for whom English is not their primary dialect. Referred to in the lawsuit as limited English proficiency (LEP) individuals, this class is gaining increasing traction in the emerging legal notion of language-based discrimination and may eventually set the stage for an expansion of the defined protected classes.

However, for now, LEP’s are not considered a distinct class of protected individuals for purposes of discrimination and equal protection claims. Nonetheless, as today’s case points out, many LEP’s also identify with other characteristics that are considered one of the protected classes, and are therefore afforded additional shelter from unfair treatment and marginalization.

Let’s Examine the Details of the Case Against the NYC Transit Authority

The case filed against the NYC Transit Authority involves its “Access-a-Ride” program, which is designed to help transport elderly and disabled New Yorkers who are unable to provide their own transportation and/or are physically unable to travel throughout the city. The Access-a-Ride program involves a complex application process, complete with a thorough questionnaire, in-person interview and a test of the applicant’s physical and mental capabilities.

However, the Transit Authority does not provide applicants with the benefit of a translator or interpreter for any of these services, resulting in the applicant having to secure his or her own interpreter or endure the testing using limited English skills. In their petition, plaintiffs allege that this practice amounts to not only language discrimination, but discrimination against those with a disability in violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) and comparable New York state laws.

In essence, plaintiffs assert that denying LEP’s access to a translator could potentially result in a denial of this much-needed benefit which would effectively violate the applicants’ rights to equal treatment.

Deciding Discrimination Lawsuits in New York

Our discrimination lawyers frequently work with clients not unlike the five plaintiffs enduring the hardships and difficulties of applying for access to the New York City “Access-a-Ride” system. Under New York law, discrimination lawsuits are a vehicle by which plaintiffs belonging to a protected class can seek restitution for the harm experienced as a result of the mistreatment.

Discrimination may be perpetrated at the hands of an employer, co-worker, government entity, landlord or private business. Currently the following categories are considered protected classes in New York:

  • Race
  • Creed
  • Color
  • Age
  • National origin, alienage or citizenship status
  • Gender and gender identity
  • Sexual orientation
  • Disability
  • Pregnancy
  • Marital status

While “native language” is not currently listed as a basis for discrimination, it is not difficult to imagine how this sort of mistreatment could fall within one of the protected classes already in place, especially discrimination based on national origin, citizenship, or alienage.

Contact Lynch Schwab for Assistance With Your Discrimination Case

The Westchester County discrimination lawyers of Lynch Schwab are just a phone call away. If you are experiencing any kind of discrimination – including any of the categories listed above – we would love the opportunity to meet with you and discuss your case. To set up a consultation, call (914) 304-4353 today.


2015-03-11 08:37:53
Measuring Damages Following a Motor Vehicle Accident A successful auto accident lawsuit can be the light at the end of a very long, arduous tunnel. Oftentimes, Westchester County car accident attorneys are able to recover much more for their clients than just reimbursement for medical expenses. What’s more, victims facing severe, life-altering injuries may be able to obtain compensation to redress the limitations and lifestyle changes facing them for the duration of their lives.

If you were recently injured in an auto accident in the Westchester or White Plains areas, an auto accident lawyer can help you determine the value of your case and the likelihood of recovery, as well as assist in obtaining the maximum possible recovery from the individuals responsible for your harm.

Special Damages in New York

Special damages are a type of monetary award meant to help the plaintiff recover from the calculable costs of his or her auto accident. In other words, special damages are available to reimburse the plaintiff for the expenses associated with his or her injuries.

These damages are quantifiable in nature and easily verifiable through invoices or other evidence showing the monetary detriments endured by the victim. Special damages in New York could include any of the following:

  • Medical bills, co-pays, visits to specialists, prescription medications, rehabilitation, chiropractic care
  • Nursing services
  • Costs of future medical care
  • Lost wages
  • Future earnings
  • Property damage

General Damages in New York

Also known as “pain and suffering,” general damages are not calculable or quantifiable. In fact, the value of a victim’s pain and suffering is usually left to the whims of a jury or judge based on the testimony and facts at hand. Pain and suffering damages are not available in every case; however the more serious the injuries, the more likely the victim will receive some sort of compensation for the pain and agony associated with the experience.

Certain scenarios constituting a “severe injury” in New York include:

  • Disfigurement or dismemberment (i.e., loss of a limb)
  • Permanent loss of a use of an organ
  • Loss of a pregnancy
  • Loss of the ability to perform daily tasks or maintain an accustomed lifestyle
  • Loss of the ability to use an appendage

Punitive Damages

“Punitive damages” is a term used to refer to damages meant to “punish” the defendant and deter similar conduct by others. Since the civil law is generally geared toward making the plaintiff “whole” again, it is not generally concerned with invoking punishments on liable defendants.

However, punitive damages are available in very limited situations wherein the court determines that the defendant’s actions amounted to more than a mere accident and were actually intentional or extremely reckless in nature.

Contact Lynch, Schwab & Gasparini, PLLC Today!

For more information about the compensation available to victims of auto accidents in New York, contact our preeminent Westchester law firm today. Call (914) 304-4353.


2015-02-25 08:27:36
Bicycle Accidents: A New York Epidemic No matter the weather, season, temperature or distance, New Yorkers will take to their bikes to avoid the hassle and headache of our infamous bumper-to-bumper traffic. Therefore inevitably, New York is one of the leading states in terms of bicycle accidents, injuries and fatalities – a statistic we hope to see decrease dramatically over the next year.

Nonetheless, a Westchester County accident law firm is one of the best resources for injured bicycle accident victims, and we encourage you to contact Lynch, Schwab & Gasparini if you or your loved one recently experienced a harrowing fall or collision likely caused by a distracted or inattentive driver. For more information, contact us right away at (914)-304-4353.

New York: Top Bicycle Accident State

In October, 2014, the Governors Highway Safety Association (GHSA) released a study focused on the sole issue of serious injuries and deaths involving cyclists. According to the GHSA’s report, U.S. bicyclist deaths increased by 16 percent from 2010 to 2012, which is alarmingly disparate from the mere one percent nationwide increase in vehicular accident fatalities. Likewise, the percentage of bicycle fatalities involving adults aged 20 and older rose from 21 percent in 1975 to a whopping 84 percent in 2012.

The statistics also revealed some trends with regard to the type of cycling victim most often involved in a fatal bicycle crash. As many as three out of every four bicycle fatalities involved a male, and 69 percent of all bicycle fatalities occur in large- to medium-sized cities and urban areas. Alcohol intoxication and lack of helmet use are also cited as common factors in bicycle fatalities across all cases.

With regard to the states handling the highest numbers of bicycle accidents, six states made up 54 percent of the crash data, including: California, Florida, New York, Illinois, Texas and Michigan.

Help for Injured Cyclists

Due to the vulnerability of a bicyclist as opposed to a traditional motorist, injuries tend to be much more severe, even in low-speed collisions. Often, bicycle accidents result in life-altering spinal cord injuries or major head trauma, particularly for victims who were not wearing a helmet at the time of the crash.

Following a bicycle accident, victims and their families often feel overwhelmed by medical appointments, specialists, rehabilitation and medical bills. Further, a large percentage of bicycle accidents occur as a result of inattentiveness, sudden lane changes or other acts of negligence by motorists, truck drivers and even motorcycle riders.

Therefore, if you have been involved in an accident and believe it was caused by the recklessness of another driver, you may be able to recover from that person for the costs of your injuries, as well as for your pain, suffering and emotional anguish associated with the incident.

Contact Lynch, Schwab & Gasparini, PLLC Right Away!

If you are facing a personal injury, don’t delay. In New York, there is a limited amount of time within which a plaintiff must file his or her claim – typically just three years from the date of the crash. For help with your case, contact us today by calling (914) 304-4353.

2015-02-11 08:06:20
Five Tips for Keeping Safe on Winter Roadways Northeastern winters can be brutal, particularly in the northern areas of Brewster and White Plains, New York. One of the best ways to avoid a catastrophic winter collision is to practice preventative measures when traveling the treacherous terrain. In this post, our car accident lawyers count down five important tips for drivers eager to remain safely on the roadways this winter season:

Tip #5: Take Inventory

Keeping a well-stocked vehicle can be a vital component to survival in the event you become stranded alongside a highway or stuck in an embankment. First aid supplies, foodstuffs and bottled water are just a few items to always keep on hand. Likewise, a flashlight, jumper cables, extra-warm blankets, hand and toe warmers and flares may also prove helpful following a winter collision.

Tip #4: Maintenance

There is no better time to update and maintain your vehicle than right before the harsh winter months. In addition to a routine oil change and brake inspection, make certain your tires are equipped for the hazards of snow and ice.

Tip #3: Know Your Way

It may seem irrelevant with the dawning of GPS technology, but it is always advisable to keep a map of the area in your vehicle just in case. Blinding winter storms are not uncommon in this area, and drivers can quickly become disoriented in even the most familiar areas. If this happens, and your GPS is also malfunctioning, you could soon face a potentially disastrous situation.

Tip #2: Practice Safe Driving

If you must drive in inclement winter weather, allow yourself plenty of time to arrive at your destination. Likewise, keep a longer-than-average distance between your vehicle and the vehicle in front of you. If you are new to winter driving, it may be wise to practice your skills in an unpaved parking lot or safe area before trying out the actual roadway. This way, you can become accustomed to your vehicle’s performance on ice and snow.

Tip #1: Don’t Risk It

When in doubt, stay home. According to a study published in the American Journal of Public Health, adverse weather has contributed to 7,000 fatalities, 800,000 personal injuries and 1.5 million vehicular accidents annually in the United States.  In addition, adverse weather is considered a contributing factor to 20 percent of all highway fatalities each year. Based on these numbers, the best advice is to stay off the road all together, if possible. If you must drive, keep these tips in mind and make safety your number one priority.

Contact Lynch, Schwab & Gasparini Today!

If you were recently involved in a winter weather collision and would like to speak to an experienced group of car accident lawyers in Brewster, we encourage you to contact Lynch, Schwab & Gasparini right away. We offer unmatched personal injury representation in the White Plains area, and you can reach us by calling (914) 304-4353 today. 

2015-01-30 08:20:17