$350,000 Mediated Settlement — cited in VerdictSearch.com

Negligent Assembly or Installation — Premises Liability —Negligent Repair and/or Maintenance Running Plaintiff Tripped on Brick that Supported Platform

MEDIATED SETTLEMENT: $350,000

CASE: Michael Riesel v City of New York and NYC Economic Development Corp , Apple Industrial Development Corp and S.D.L. Construction Corp., No. 112428/07

COURT: New York Supreme. JUDGE: Michael D. Stallman. NEUTRAL: Marvin Segal. DATE: 5/28/2009.

PLAINTIFF ATTORNEY(S): Alan M. Greenberg, Law Offices of Alan M. Greenberg P.C., New York, NY

DEFENSE ATTORNEY(S): Regine Dely-Lazard, Hoey, King, Toker & Epstein, New York, NY

FACTS & ALLEGATIONS: On April 17, 2007, plaintiff Michael Riesel, 44, a computer programmer, tripped while running on a concrete security barrier of the Pier 11 ferry terminal, about 25 feet east of South Street, in Manhattan He fell, and sustained an injury of a shoulder.

Riesel sued the pier’s owner, the city of New York; the pier’s maintainer, the New York City Economic Development Corp and the security barrier’s installers, Apple Industrial Development Corp and S.D.L. Construction Corp. He alleged that Apple Industrial Development and S.D.L. Construction were negligent in their installation of the barrier, that the city and the New York City Economic Development Corp were negligent in their maintenance of the barrier, and that the defendants’ negligence created a dangerous condition.

Riesel claimed that he tripped on a loose brick that had been placed beneath a platform supporting a bollard shaped like an anchor. Riesel’s counsel argued that the brick had been negligently used to support the platform. He also argued that the city and the New York City Economic Development Corp should have noticed and addressed the brick.

Defense counsel contended that the accident was simply a result of Riesel running and failing to see what should have been seen .

INJURIES/DAMAGES: comminuted fracture; decreased range of motion, fracture, displaced fracture, humerus, fracture, shoulder, hemiarthroplasty; prosthesis; scar and/or disfigurement.

Riesel sustained a four-part displaced fracture of the proximal region of his right, dominant arm’s humerus, which forms the lower portion of the shoulder. He initially underwent a hemiarthroplasty— replacement of half of the damaged shoulder joint. However, he claimed that the fracture’s significant comminution prevented successful reduction and necessitated subsequent implantation of a cemented prosthesis.

Riesel contended that he bears extensive, disfiguring, residual scars He also contended that he suffers significant residual reductions of the mobility of his left arm and shoulder He claimed that the limitations prevent his performance of some of his everyday activities.

Riesel sought recovery of his past and future medical expenses and damages for his past and future pain and suffering.

RESULT: During discovery and prior to deposing of the defendants, the parties negotiated a $350,000 settlement, which was finalized via the guidance of mediator Marvin Segal, of the Jansen Group.

PLAINTIFF EXPERT(S): Nirmal C. Tejwani, M.D., orthopedic surgery, New York, NY (did not testify).

DEFENSE EXPERT(S): Charles M. Totero, M.D., orthopedic surgery, Purchase, NY (did not testify).

EDITOR’S NOTE: This report is based on information that was provided by plaintiff’s counsel. Defense counsel did not respond to the reporter’s phone calls.

—Tim Heinz