Stavros Sitinas obtained a $950,000 settlement on the eve of trial for a 38-year-old tractor-trailer driver whose truck was struck in the rear by another tractor-trailer on the Cross Bronx Expressway. As a result of the accident, the client suffered injuries to his lower back and neck, which required fusion surgery to correct. The client initially retained the services of a different attorney after his accident; however he dismissed that attorney because he felt the attorney was trying to settle his case for an amount that was insufficient relative to the injuries sustained. Within three months of commencing work on the case, Mr. Sitinas was able to secure a settlement offer that was $350,000 more than what his prior attorney was trying to convince him to accept. The $950,000 settlement was only $15,000 less than the maximum amount of insurance afforded to the offending tractor-trailer, an amount that surely would have been spent on expert testimony had the case gone to trial.

This case is a prime example of the importance of retaining an experienced trial lawyer from the outset, someone who is well known to the insurance companies and who has the skills and expertise to see your case through to the end. As this client learned, hiring the wrong attorney can directly impact the value of your case.

Mr. Sitinas obtained a significant, yet confidential, settlement from a bicycle manufacturer who, it was alleged, negligently designed their bicycle. It was alleged that the negligent design of this particular bike caused our client to be thrown over the handlebars of his bike, requiring arthroscopic surgery to one of his shoulders.

In yet another testament to our commitment to resolve matters as quickly and effectively as possible, we were able to resolve matter in just two (2) months from the date of being retained. In that short period of time, Mr. Sitinas was able to not only pin-point the design defect in the bike, but also find other cases where people were injured in the exact same manner and due to the same defect. Moreover Mr. Sitinas was able to prove that the manufacturer not only knew of this defective design but had taken steps to remedy it in subsequent models of the same bike.

With no contest to our claims, the matter proceeded to settlement negotiations, resulting in a confidential settlement amount.

Stavros Sitinas obtained a $950,000 settlement on the eve of trial for a 38-year-old tractor-trailer driver whose truck was struck in the rear by another tractor-trailer on the Cross Bronx Expressway. As a result of the accident, the client suffered injuries to his lower back and neck, which required fusion surgery to correct. The client initially retained the services of a different attorney after his accident; however he dismissed that attorney because he felt the attorney was trying to settle his case for an amount that was insufficient relative to the injuries sustained. Within three months of commencing work on the case, Mr. Sitinas was able to secure a settlement offer that was $350,000 more than what his prior attorney was trying to convince him to accept. The $950,000 settlement was only $15,000 less than the maximum amount of insurance afforded to the offending tractor-trailer, an amount that surely would have been spent on expert testimony had the case gone to trial.

This case is a prime example of the importance of retaining an experienced trial lawyer from the outset, someone who is well known to the insurance companies and who has the skills and expertise to see your case through to the end. As this client learned, hiring the wrong attorney can directly impact the value of your case.

Mr. Sitinas obtained a $750,000 settlement for a 57-year-old client who was struck by a ceiling fan that, incredibly, dislodged from the ceiling while operating at full speed. The fan struck the client in the back of her neck and head, causing injuries that ultimately required cervical fusion surgery.

The chain of events leading up to this accident began at the plaintiff's beach house in Long Island, where the subject ceiling fan was initially installed. During renovations of the client's apartment in Manhattan, the client decided to have the ceiling fan removed from her beach house and delivered to Manhattan for installation in her apartment. As the client had already hired a general contractor, who in turn had hired an electrical subcontractor, she figured the installation of this ceiling fan would be a simple task. She would soon learn that was not the case at all.

The electrical subcontractor installed the fan and at first everything seemed to be operating normally. However, after a short period of time the fan made peculiar noises during operation, indicating excessive vibration. The client notified the electrical subcontractor, who found nothing out of the ordinary. Shortly thereafter, while the fan was in use, it literally spun off the ceiling and came crashing down on the plaintiff's neck and head, causing serious injuries.

The client sued both the general contractor and the electrical subcontractor. They both denied liability and initially sought to blame the plaintiff for installing an old fan in a new location. They claimed the fan's mounting screws were rusted from exposure to the salt air at the plaintiff's beach house, and they further claimed they had tried to talk the plaintiff into installing a new fan in her Manhattan apartment. The client denied any such conversations and countered that if, in fact, the screws had been compromised by the elements, they should have ordered new screws for the installation.

Mr. Sitinas's expert engineer inspected the subject fan and quickly came to the conclusion that not only was there nothing wrong with the screws that were used, but that the electrical subcontractor had failed to install one very important and integral screw during installation. Moreover, it was determined that the installer never consulted with the manufacturer's installation manual during installation, because if he had, he would have quickly realized he was missing this critically important screw.

The case proceeded to jury selection. Immediately before opening arguments were to be made to the jury, the case settled for $750,000.

A routine day of errands turned out to be anything but routine for a 44-year-old mother, who found herself in the emergency room after being cut off by a school bus. The accident occurred on a beautiful, sunny June day. The plaintiff was proceeding straight in the right-hand lane of a two-lane roadway. A full-size school bus was proceeding in the left lane, slightly ahead of her minivan. As the plaintiff approached a side street on her right, she turned on her directional arrow, indicating her intention to turn into the side street. What the plaintiff did not realize was that the school bus was also intending to turn right onto the side street, despite being in the left lane and not having any turn signal on. The school bus driver clearly did not see the plaintiff's vehicle in the right lane, and as he turned the large bus to the right, he sandwiched the plaintiff's car up against the curb. As a result of the impact and despite wearing a seat belt, the plaintiff's body was thrust about, causing injuries to her neck. She was transported by ambulance to Huntington Hospital in Suffolk County with complaints of neck pain. She was treated and released that day.

The plaintiff had experienced prior neck pain and had been treated sporadically by a chiropractor. However, this time the pain was much more severe and the plaintiff endured several years of treatment, including steroid injections and physical therapy, before finally deciding to proceed with cervical fusion surgery.

Mr. Sitinas sued the school bus company as well as the school bus driver. To complicate matters, the school bus driver died shortly after this accident (completely unrelated to the accident itself); therefore, Mr. Sitinas had to proceed against the driver's estate. The defendants denied liability for the accident, claiming that the plaintiff was solely responsible for the accident in that she was traveling too fast and failed to see the school bus's directional arrow indicating the driver's intention to turn right. These claims by the defendant school bus driver were contained in numerous accident reports prepared by the school bus company's safety department, and because they are considered to be business documents under New York law, they would be admissible at trial as an exception to the Hearsay Rule. This put Mr. Sitinas at a disadvantage, since he would never be able to depose the school bus driver and ask him about his assertions. Instead, Mr. Sitinas took the deposition testimony of the school bus company's safety director, and after extensive questioning, was able to prove that the school bus operator violated the vehicle and traffic laws of New York by failing to make sure it was safe to make his right turn before commencing his turn. The parties ultimately agreed to attend a mediation session in an effort to resolve the matter prior to trial. After several hours, the parties agreed to a $750,000 settlement.

Mr. Sitinas obtained a $636,000 jury verdict for a 43-year-old client who lived in the Bronx. The apartment building where she lived had a history of leaks, and the client had frequently complained to the building's superintendent about water that would leak into her apartment from the units above. In this particular instance, the client was injured when a large section of her bedroom ceiling collapsed, striking her in the head. While she felt immediate pain in her neck, the client did not wish to go to the emergency room and instead hoped her symptoms would resolve over time. Unfortunately, her condition did not improve and she eventually came under the care of a chiropractor and an orthopedist. She was sent for MRI tests, which revealed a herniated disc and a bulging disc in her neck. She underwent more than 200 chiropractic visits over the course of several years, but was too fearful to undergo the epidural steroid injections her orthopedist suggested.

Mr. Sitinas sued the owner of the apartment building and the management company. He was able to show that the building had a long-standing problem with leaks and took few, if any, steps to rectify the problem. Moreover, the superintendent admitted during the trial that one day prior to the plaintiff's accident, plumbing work had been performed in the apartment above. He also admitted that the drain pipe was never connected and any water from the sink went directly onto the floor and not down a drain pipe. Mr. Sitinas argued that this water eventually worked its way down into the plaintiff's apartment, causing the ceiling to collapse. He further argued that, since the plumbing work was performed by employees of the building's management company, they created the condition which led to the plaintiff's injuries; therefore they were liable for those injuries. The jury agreed, awarding $636,000 in damages for pain and suffering and medical expenses.

Stavros Sitinas successfully negotiated a substantial $600,000 settlement on behalf of a 41 year old New Jersey woman who was injured when the tour bus she was traveling in performed an evasive maneuver when it suddenly and unexpectedly came upon a disabled vehicle in the middle lane of the Cross Bronx Expressway.

This accident took place on May 19, 2002 and the case was being handled by another law firm, which then retained Stavros E. Sitinas, LLC, as trial counsel in September 2010. While Mr. Sitinas is frequently retained as trial counsel by other firms, he faced numerous challenges in this particular case, in particular the passage of eight (8) years since the time of the accident. Another significant challenge was the “Emergency Doctrine” defense.

At trial, the defendants would have argued that the tour bus operator was not responsible for the plaintiff’s injuries under the “Emergency Doctrine” as he was simply responding and reacting to an emergency situation, i.e. a broken down vehicle in the middle lane of a three (3) lane highway. The driver was prepared to testify that he was traveling safely and cautiously, when the vehicle directly in front of his suddenly swerved out of the middle lane, revealing a broken down vehicle stopped in the middle of the highway. Faced with this unexpected emergency situation, the tour bus driver claimed he did the only thing he possibly could to avoid the accident, namely to slam on his breaks and cut the wheel of the bus to the right. Unfortunately, when he did so, the plaintiff was walking in the aisle of the bus was thrown towards the front, striking her head against the windshield with such force that it caused the windshield to crack. Our client sustained injuries to her neck, including cervical herniation requiring fusion surgery.

Under New York Law, the Emergency Doctrine defense essentially holds that when an actor is faced with a sudden unexpected circumstance which leaves little or no time for thought, or causes the actor to be reasonably so disturbed that the actor must make a speedy decision without weighing alternative courses of conduct, the actor may not be held negligent if the actions taken were reasonable and prudent under the facts of the emergency at hand.

Mr. Sitinas needed to prove, through expert testimony that this particular accident was avoidable had the tour bus operator simply been alert and seen what was there to be seen. He also needed to hire an orthopedic surgeon in New York to testify as to the client’s injuries and treatment, due to the fact that plaintiff’s New Jersey-based surgeon refused to travel to New York for testimony during the trial.

The parties attended mediation prior to trial, but were unsuccessful at settlement. While both sides were gearing up for trial and preparing their experts for testimony, Mr. Sitinas successfully negotiated a $600,000 settlement directly with the insurance company for the tour bus. This settlement avoided what could have been a risky trial for both sides.

Stavros E. Sitinas obtained a $600,000 settlement for the estate of a man who was killed by an out of control vehicle in a strip mall parking lot. The vehicle had jumped onto the sidewalk, destroying several concrete planters and a park bench before striking and killing the victim. Tragically, this horrific event was witnessed by the 6-year-old daughter of the decedent. The recovery exceeded the total available insurance proceeds by $100,000 because Mr. Sitinas convinced the driver's family members to contribute personally to the settlement.

This terrible event occurred on a beautiful summer day when the victim and his 6-year-old daughter went to a local shopping plaza to run some errands. At the time, the father was seated on a park bench on the sidewalk in front of the stores, while his daughter played on a scooter near her father. At the same time, approximately 200 feet away, an elderly driver was attempting to back out of a parking space. What she did not realize was that she had actually placed the vehicle's transmission into "drive" rather than "reverse." As she continued to apply power to the vehicle, her front tires kept hitting the tire blocks at the front of her parking space. When the driver abruptly stepped on her gas pedal, the vehicle took off uncontrollably, driving over the tire blocks, up a curb, through a landscaped median and up onto the sidewalk of the outdoor shopping plaza. The vehicle continued driving along the sidewalk in front of the stores and toward the victim and his daughter. The victim valiantly jumped off the park bench and ran toward his daughter, who was still riding her scooter. While frantically yelling to his daughter to get out of the way, he was run over by the vehicle and instantly killed. His daughter, while physically safe, was emotionally scarred by witnessing her father's death. A witness on the scene removed the child from the site of the accident until her mother could pick her up.

Mr. Sitinas sued the 90-year-old driver of the car, who unfortunately had only $500,000 of insurance on her vehicle and no attachable assets to satisfy an excess judgment. However, Mr. Sitinas was able to negotiate an additional $100,000 of settlement proceeds from the children of the defendant driver even though they were not defendants in this action and had no legal obligation to pay anything toward the settlement of this matter. Claims were also brought on behalf of the daughter, who suffered emotional distress as a result of witnessing this horrific event. These claims were brought under a legal principle known as "Zone of Danger" emotional distress, which provides monetary compensation to immediate family members who witness that family member's accident while also being in the zone of danger themselves.

Mr. Sitinas obtained a $600,000 settlement for the estate of a 15-year-old student at a residential school for children with learning and adjustment difficulties who, tragically, was pushed to his death from a second story window by his roommate. Mr. Sitinas began his investigation immediately after being retained, working closely with his team of private investigators as well as the local police department detectives who arrested the roommate and interviewed witnesses at the scene. As discovery continued, it became abundantly clear that the offending student had planned this act of violence for some time and even bragged to others about his intentions. Mr. Sitinas sued the school, alleging they failed to provide adequate security to ensure the safety of their students and also for negligently admitting the offending student to their school in the first place, as he had a violent background and the school was not equipped to admit students who exhibited acts of violence or destructive tendencies. The school realized that proceeding to trial was a risk they were unwilling to take and they settled shortly before jury selection.

In an extremely difficult case, Mr. Sitinas was able to negotiate a substantial $550,000 settlement on behalf of a bicyclist who was injured when a tour bus passed him on his left side, only to then make a right turn directly into his path. The 48 year old plaintiff tried unsuccessfully to stop his bicycle before colliding with the rear wheel area of the bus and being thrown to the pavement.

Remarkably, the bus driver did not even know that an accident had occurred. Thank goodness, good samaritans in the area chased the driver down the street and yelled to him to stop the bus.

After commencing suit against the bus driver and the tour company that employed the driver, Mr. Sitinas took the deposition of the defendant bus driver. It was clear that the driver was attempting to blame the accident on the cyclist, claiming that our client failed to keep a proper lookout and that, based upon the fact that the plaintiff hit the rear section of the bus, the bus was almost fully into its turn and it was therefor the plaintiff’s fault for not keeping his bicycle under proper control.

However, Mr. Sitinas was able to poke some holes into the driver’s story. First, Mr. Sitinas was able to show that the narrow side street into which the bus driver turned could not have been accomplished without the driver making a wide right turn, quite possibly from the center lane of Amsterdam Avenue. He was also able to show that the bus driver failed to take the cyclist’s position into account and, in fact, was most likely trying to beat the cyclist into the turn.

As a result of this accident, the cyclist suffered bulging discs and a herniated disc at the L5-S1 level and L4-5 level. After attempting to rid himself of pain through both physical therapy and Epidural Steroid injections the plaintiff ultimately underwent a Laminectomy and Discectomy surgery on his lower back. While this improved the low-back pain which travelled down his leg, it did not fully cure the pain.

After sitting down with the defense attorney and the insurance adjuster for the bus, Mr. Sitinas was able to hammer out a significant settlement and avoid trial.

The parties attended mediation prior to trial, but were unsuccessful at settlement. While both sides were gearing up for trial and preparing their experts for testimony, Mr. Sitinas successfully negotiated a $600,000 settlement directly with the insurance company for the tour bus. This settlement avoided what could have been a risky trial for both sides.

Mr. Sitinas obtained a $500,000 jury verdict for a 64-year-old woman who was injured while shopping at an outdoor flea market situated in a parking lot. While browsing at various items on display, the plaintiff's foot slid down a depression and lodged in a crevice. As a result, she fell and badly fractured her ankle, requiring her to undergo surgery for the insertion of a plate and screws.

Mr. Sitinas sued the owners of both the flea market and the parking lot that operated the location during the week, alleging that the parking lot was defective and dangerous for patrons of the flea market. The defendants contended that the lot was reasonably safe, that the plaintiff failed to see an open and obvious condition, and that they had no specific knowledge of the defect.

Mr. Sitinas was able to prove that both defendants had actual knowledge of the defect, as they had made numerous prior pothole repairs to the parking lot, including the area where the plaintiff fell. Furthermore, Mr. Sitinas retained an engineer who opined that the parking lot was not safe to walk around in and that the defendants used substandard repair methods that contributed to the creation of this depression and crevice. Mr. Sitinas also emphasized that the reason the plaintiff did not see the hole was because she was looking to her right and left at the merchandise for sale. He argued that after diverting her attention to the merchandise it was trying to sell, the defendant should not benefit from the argument that the plaintiff was not looking at the ground in front of her. The jury agreed and awarded the plaintiff $500,000 in compensation. Interestingly, immediately prior to jury selection, the defendants had offered $250,000 to settle this case. A mediator on behalf of the Court suggested that this settlement amount was fair and should be accepted. Mr. Sitinas and his client disagreed and instead proceeded to trial.

Stavros E. Sitinas obtained a $467,500 recovery for a client who was injured in an auto accident that occurred at an intersection controlled by a traffic light. The issue presented was, which driver had the green light?

In a hotly contested case involving a question of lights, the defense argued that the plaintiff was travelling at an excessive rate of speed and against a red light when his vehicle collided with the defendant's 24-foot box truck, which was making a left turn from Rockaway Boulevard into a freight facility at the International Airport Center in Queens, NY. Mr. Sitinas contended that the defendant truck driver disregarded a red left-turn arrow and crossed into the plaintiff's path of travel. Mr. Sitinas conceded that at the time of the accident, the plaintiff had a yellow light and because he could not safety stop in time, he accelerated through it. However, he also argued that even if the plaintiff was speeding to get through the intersection, this was irrelevant, as the defendant disregarded a steady red left-turn arrow. Moreover, at trial Mr. Sitinas was able to prove that even if the plaintiff's light was red when he went through the intersection, the next light to turn green was for traffic exiting the freight facility and not for traffic making a left turn into the facility. Therefore, the truck had to have gone through a red light when the driver made his left turn into the facility. Mr. Sitinas was able to prove, through a Department of Transportation witness, the exact timing and sequencing of the traffic lights controlling this intersection. He was also able to prove, through a witness who was waiting for a green light to exit the freight facility, that at the time of the impact, this witness's traffic light was still red and therefore so too was the truck's light for left turns.

The jury found the defendant was 85% responsible for this accident. Prior to the jury's verdict, Mr. Sitinas and the defense attorney agreed to high/low settlement parameters of $50,000 to $550,000, avoiding the need for medical testimony at trial. As such, and based upon the jury's findings of 85% liability against the defendant, the plaintiff was awarded 85% of $550,000, or $467,500. It should be noted that one day prior to the trial, Mr. Sitinas made a demand for $300,000 to settle this matter, based upon the judge's recommendation. The insurance company refused.

As a result of this accident, the 40-year-old plaintiff sustained multiple fractures to his left arm, including his ulna and radial shaft, requiring surgery and internal fixation of the fractured bones. He also sustained a laceration to his head requiring approximately 20 staples to close the wound.

Mr. Sitinas secured a $425,000 settlement for a 58-year-old Manhattan resident who tripped and fell over a raised sidewalk flag abutting the apartment building where he lived. The accident occurred while the plaintiff was walking his dog. Immediately after the fall, the plaintiff's dog ran back to the building's front door, where the doormen recognized the dog as belonging to the plaintiff. When the plaintiff returned to his apartment building, he informed the doormen and office staff of his accident. He returned to his apartment and tried to collect himself; he even attempted to go to work, but was unable to complete his work day.

At the urging of his wife, he visited the emergency room of a nearby hospital, where a CT scan revealed a subdural hematoma (bleeding on the brain). An immediate evacuation of the hematoma was performed by drilling burr holes into the plaintiff's skull to relieve pressure on the brain. Following a short stay in the hospital, the plaintiff was discharged to his home. Not long after, the plaintiff started to complain of frequent headaches and memory loss. An examination by a neuropsychologist indicated a traumatic brain injury with some cognitive deficits; however, the defendant's doctors denied any traumatic brain injury and found only mild post concussion syndrome.

A suit was filed against the building co-op and the managing agent, alleging that they knew of this particular portion of raised sidewalk and failed to rectify the dangerous condition. The evidence revealed that the building's management had actually contracted with a company to come and grind down the height differential but that the work had not yet taken place at the time of the plaintiff's accident. The defendants also claimed that the plaintiff did not fall due to the raised sidewalk, but instead fell when his dog suddenly lunged forward, breaking free from his grasp and causing him to fall.

This was allegedly witnessed by a neighbor, but the accuracy of this account was suspect and the neighbor eventually refused to cooperate. With two very different accounts being offered, the parties decided that a settlement was the best option. The matter was settled on the day jury selection was to begin for $425,000.

Mr. Sitinas obtained a significant, yet confidential, settlement from a bicycle manufacturer who, it was alleged, negligently designed their bicycle. It was alleged that the negligent design of this particular bike caused our client to be thrown over the handlebars of his bike, requiring arthroscopic surgery to one of his shoulders.

In yet another testament to our commitment to resolve matters as quickly and effectively as possible, we were able to resolve matter in just two (2) months from the date of being retained. In that short period of time, Mr. Sitinas was able to not only pin-point the design defect in the bike, but also find other cases where people were injured in the exact same manner and due to the same defect. Moreover Mr. Sitinas was able to prove that the manufacturer not only knew of this defective design but had taken steps to remedy it in subsequent models of the same bike.

With no contest to our claims, the matter proceeded to settlement negotiations, resulting in a confidential settlement amount.

Stavros E. Sitinas obtained a $408,000 verdict for a 34-year-old woman who was involved in an auto accident. She was a passenger in a livery vehicle hired by her employer to transport her to work.

While traveling southbound on FDR Drive, the livery vehicle was involved in a collision with several other vehicles. As a result of the impact, the plaintiff was thrown forward, hitting her head on the back of the headrest in front of her, suffering a herniated disc in her neck at the C5-6 level.

During the trial, the defendants argued that the herniated disc was pre-existing, and even if it was not, it was caused by the plaintiff's failure to wear a seatbelt. Mr. Sitinas was able to prove, through the use of the plaintiff's MRI films and expert testimony, that the herniated disc was directly caused by the frontal-impact and could not have been prevented by wearing a seatbelt. The defendants never made any offer of settlement prior to this eight-day trial. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff in the amount of $408,000, obviously giving no credence to the lack of a seatbelt defense.

Stavros Sitinas negotiated a $400,000 settlement for a 42-year-old woman who was seriously injured during an assault that occurred on the grounds of the apartment complex where she lived. As a result of the attack, the client sustained facial fractures of her orbital bone and nose, as well as injuries to her ear. The assailants were never found.

Mr. Sitinas sued the owner of the apartment complex as well as the managing agent, alleging a breach of their duty to provide to the plaintiff reasonably safe premises via proper security measures. He also claimed a failure to properly maintain the building, in that the front door locks were often broken, which allowed local drug dealers access to the building's common areas, where they subsequently set up shop for their illicit trade. The plaintiff identified her assailants as drug dealers who did not live in the building, but frequently congregated there.

The defendants denied the claims of negligent security and asserted that they, in fact, acted reasonably by hiring an outside security company to periodically patrol the buildings and grounds of the complex. They also claimed they responded reasonably to incidents of broken door locks, repairing them as quickly as they could. Moreover, they claimed that the plaintiff was not a victim of random violence but actually an intended target by these assailants and, therefore, no amount of security would have prevented the assault, since sooner or later the assailants would have found the plaintiff and settled their score with her. If true, this could have been fatal to the claims. However, through diligent and thorough investigation, Mr. Sitinas was able to uncover evidence suggesting that the security measures employed by the defendants were wholly ineffective. On several occasions, the security guards themselves were attacked.

The parties agreed to attend a mediation session in an attempt to settle the matter prior to trial. After several hours of negotiations, the matter was resolved by way of a $400,000 settlement in favor of the plaintiff.

Stavros Sitinas negotiated a $400,000 settlement for a 42-year-old woman who was seriously injured during an assault that occurred on the grounds of the apartment complex where she lived. As a result of the attack, the client sustained facial fractures of her orbital bone and nose, as well as injuries to her ear. The assailants were never found.

Mr. Sitinas sued the owner of the apartment complex as well as the managing agent, alleging a breach of their duty to provide to the plaintiff reasonably safe premises via proper security measures. He also claimed a failure to properly maintain the building, in that the front door locks were often broken, which allowed local drug dealers access to the building's common areas, where they subsequently set up shop for their illicit trade. The plaintiff identified her assailants as drug dealers who did not live in the building, but frequently congregated there.

The defendants denied the claims of negligent security and asserted that they, in fact, acted reasonably by hiring an outside security company to periodically patrol the buildings and grounds of the complex. They also claimed they responded reasonably to incidents of broken door locks, repairing them as quickly as they could. Moreover, they claimed that the plaintiff was not a victim of random violence but actually an intended target by these assailants and, therefore, no amount of security would have prevented the assault, since sooner or later the assailants would have found the plaintiff and settled their score with her. If true, this could have been fatal to the claims. However, through diligent and thorough investigation, Mr. Sitinas was able to uncover evidence suggesting that the security measures employed by the defendants were wholly ineffective. On several occasions, the security guards themselves were attacked.

The parties agreed to attend a mediation session in an attempt to settle the matter prior to trial. After several hours of negotiations, the matter was resolved by way of a $400,000 settlement in favor of the plaintiff.

Immediately prior to trial Mr. Sitinas was able to obtain a significant $342,500 settlement for a 49 year old plaintiff who fractured his wrist when he fell off a ladder while painting an apartment.

This accident occurred at an apartment building in Astoria, Queens on July 25, 2008. At that time, our client had been hired to paint several apartments inside a building which contained commercial businesses on the ground level and apartments above. Our client claimed he was on a ladder pulling nails out of a window frame when his ladder slid and one of the ladder’s legs became caught in a torn section of the apartment’s linoleum flooring. As the leg of the ladder got caught, the ladder toppled over and our client tried to break his fall by extending his right arm. Unfortunately, he not only broke his fall but also his right wrist, requiring surgery to repair his distal radius. During the surgery, screws were implanted to secure the distal radius fracture.

Mr. Sitinas sued the building owners, alleging violations of New York Labor Laws, Section 240(1). We claimed the owners were strictly liable for our client’s injuries as they failed to provide our client with appropriate safety devices and failed to properly secure the ladder. We also claimed the flooring itself was defective and dangerous, contributing to the accident.

The defendant owners vehemently denied that the accident occurred in the subject apartment. They claim that when they first learned of plaintiff’s injured wrist, he was downstairs and outside the building. They claim he had gone to his vehicle to retrieve supplies then he fell crossing the street- therefore the New York Labor Laws did not apply and they, as the building’s owners, were not responsible for plaintiff’s fall outside their building on the street. They further claimed that when they learned of plaintiff’s accident, they sent him to the hospital and then proceeded upstairs to lock the apartment door. They claimed that when they went to secure the apartment, they noticed the ladder was standing upright in the apartment and not toppled over as plaintiff claimed- therefore the accident must have occurred somewhere other than the apartment itself.

The plaintiff claimed this was a fabrication of the defendants to avoid legal liability for his injuries. He claimed his accident did indeed occur upstairs in the apartment where his ladder fell. He further stated that the reason the owners first learned of the accident when plaintiff was outside their building is because that is where the plaintiff went to inform them of the accident. The building owners maintained a business that was only accessible from the sidewalk outside of the building and not accessible from the apartment building’s lobby. In order to inform them of his injury and inability to complete his work, he proceeded outside the building and encountered one of the owners on the sidewalk. He further states that several days later, he sent an employee of his to the apartment to finish the work. When that employee entered the apartment, the ladder was still laying on its side exactly where it had landed after the plaintiff’s fall. Thus the building owners were not being truthful in claiming they found the ladder standing upright when they secured the apartment.

Shortly before trial, the defendant building owners offered a substantial amount of money to avoid having a jury decide this case. Based upon the significant sum offered, the client decided to accept the settlement and forego trial.

Mr. Sitinas represented a 33 year old woman who was struck by a flat-bed tow truck while she was crossing a busy intersection in the Bronx. The accident occurred on May 21, 2007 at the intersection of White Plains Road and Pelham Parkway in the Bronx.

Our client claimed she was crossing within the crosswalk when the flat-bed tow truck made a right turn onto Pelham Parkway from White Plains Road. She states she was struck by the front of the truck, which then passed over her. She suffered pelvic fractures which luckily did not require surgical repair.

The defendants argued that the tow truck operator was not to blame. He testified that he waited until pedestrian traffic had cleared before proceeding with his turn. He also testified that he never saw the plaintiff until she was lying in the roadway- outside the crosswalk. Therefore, the tow truck driver claimed our client was to blame for walking into the side of his turning truck. He also claims that the client’s cell phone records indicated she was speaking on her phone at the time of the accident and must have been distracted.

An independent eye witness also claims he saw our client crossing the intersection well outside the crosswalk.

As the case proceeded to trial, a jury was selected, a judge was assigned and the attorneys were about to present their opening arguments to the jury when the defense made one last try at settlement, offering $300,000 to avoid trial. Considering the differing accounts and eye witness testimony, the client decided to avoid a contentious trial by accepting this settlement. It should be noted that prior to this offer, the amount being offered was substantially less. Clearly, the insurance company wanted to see if, in fact, the plaintiff was prepared to proceed with the trial. Once they realized she and her attorney were more than willing to try this case before the jury, they offered a significant settlement.

A 37-year-old security guard working at the Hyatt Hotel in Midtown Manhattan suffered serious knee injuries as a result of a fall caused by a recurring leak from some overhead pipes in the hotel's basement. On the day of the accident, a significant collection of water had accumulated on the floor directly outside the security company's command post. On his way to his shift, the security guard slipped and twisted his knee, causing knee ligament injuries that required surgical repair. He endured a long recovery and spent several months in physical therapy.

Mr. Sitinas sued the hotel for failure to repair the recurring condition that led to this accident. The condition was so prevalent that the security guards had to put out buckets to collect the water on a daily basis. Mr. Sitinas uncovered evidence indicating that the security guards frequently requested that the hotel's maintenance department fix the leaks, but nothing was done. The maintenance department denied knowledge of any such requests, but the security guards produced numerous entries from their activity log book confirming the complaints were made. Faced with overwhelming evidence against the hotel, the defendant opted to settle the matter for $300,000.

Stavros E. Sitinas obtained a $280,000 recovery for a 41-year-old woman who sustained fractures to her left tibia and fibula after falling down several steps inside her apartment building. The accident occurred when the nosing of a step broke as the plaintiff was descending the staircase in her building. Mr. Sitinas and the plaintiff alleged that the marble interior staircase was dangerous and defective in that it had become worn down after years of use and posed a risk to the tenants of the building and their visitors.

The attorney for the owner of the building argued that the slight depression in the marble stairs was not dangerous, and in fact was no different than other marble stairs throughout New York City. He further argued that the plaintiff lived in this building for eight years before the accident and used these stairs three to four times daily without ever falling. He claimed the accident was simply a result of a lack of care by the plaintiff in descending the staircase, and not because of any defective condition.

To counter this, Mr. Sitinas retained an expert engineer to testify about the unsafe condition of the stairs. He opined that the building owners had not used reasonable care in maintaining the stairs and that this excessive wearing of the step had developed over many years and should have been fixed by the owners of the building.

Prior to trial, the defendant's attorney offered $100,000 to settle this case -- an amount that was rejected, and the case proceeded to trial. After the jurors entered into their second day of deliberations, Mr. Sitinas settled the case for $280,000.

Stavros E. Sitinas obtained a $150,000 verdict for a man whose finger was partially crushed between two sectional panels of an overhead garage door at a home he rented from the defendant. The plaintiff claimed he had been experiencing problems with the automatic garage door and had verbally asked his landlord to fix it on numerous occasions prior to the happening of the accident. On the day of the accident, the garage door did not close and the plaintiff was forced to manually pull down the door, overriding the automatic function. When he pulled the manual release cord, the garage door began to free-fall to the ground; the plaintiff impulsively reached out to slow the door, but his finger became caught between two panels. The defendant denied that the plaintiff told him about the defective door and instead blamed the plaintiff for putting his hand in harm's way. The plaintiff underwent a surgical procedure to successfully reattach skin on the tip of his finger, but he still feels numbness and tingling. The defendant never offered any money to settle the case, but the jury found the defendant negligent and awarded the plaintiff $150,000.