Contact the personal injury lawyers of Proner & Proner in New York City for assistance in your legal case.
New York Office:
60 E. 42nd Street
Suite 1448
New York, New York 10165
Map & Directions
Connecticut Office:
14 Depot Place
Bethel, CT 06801
Map & Directions
Phone:
1-866-424-4496
Email:
Proner & Proner in the News
Proner & Proner is renowned as one of the premier personal injury law firms in the nation. Our lawyers in New York City are continually recognized in prominent publications for their committed efforts representing the interests of injured victims throughout New York and the United States. Proner & Proner is also dedicated to providing the general public with sound legal advice through informative articles written by attorney Mitchell Proner and other respected legal sources. Our compilation of articles covers a broad range of topics, including personal injury, car accidents, and motorcycle accidents. Browse through our publications archive for expert legal guidance, and to read about Proner & Proner's high-profile cases.
Press Articles
- $5,100,000 Settlement
- Mitchell Proner successfully settled case during trial for $3.5 million.
- Mitchell Proner wins 3.3 million dollar verdict
- September, 2007 Pedestrian Hit by Truck Settlement $2.6 Million
- Proner & Proner Wins Jury Trial in Scooter Accident Case October 2006
- Motorcycle Accident Claim Settles August 2006
- Proner & Proner Wins Jury Trial in Car Accident Case August 2006
- Proner & Proner Wins Jury Trial in Motorcycle Accident Case July 2006
- Mitchell Proner Honored by the National Coalition of Motorcyclists
- Freedom Can't be Protected by a Helmet
$5,100,000 Settlement
Mitchell Proner was recently successful in settling the personal injury claim of Donna Newcomer for $5,100,000. Ms. Newcomer’s claim was for injuries she sustained on September 17, 2003 when her bicycle was struck by and pulled under an 18 wheel tractor-trailer in Lancaster, Pennsylvania. The tractor trailer was owned by the defendant Armstrong World Industries.
Initially Ms. Newcomer contacted a local Lancaster attorney, but he failed to return her phone calls and never actually agreed to represent her. This was probably due to the fact that the police report, which included the names of six independent witnesses, indicated that the accident was Ms. Newcomer’s fault. After investigating the accident scene and interviewing the witnesses, the officer who prepared the report concluded that Ms. Newcomer had failed to stop a the corner while the truck was making a right hand turn and had driven her bicycle into the side of the truck. Ms. Newcomer, however, claimed that she had stopped on the sidewalk and when she realized that the rear wheels were going to come up onto the sidewalk, she attempted to peddle out of the way and in the process the bike’s handle bar struck the trailer and she fell under the truck. The wheels of the trailer ran over her right leg and she subsequently had to have it amputated at Lancaster Hospital.
Mss. Newcomer was still in a rehabilitation facility when her sister did some research online and contacted Mitchell Proner of the Law Offices of Proner & Proner. Mr. Proner agreed to come to Lancaster Pennsylvania that same day. Mr. Proner traveled from Manhattan, New York to Lancaster. He listened to Ms. Newcomer’s version of what had happened to her and immediately agreed to represent her. Within 24 hours of having been contact by Donna’s sister, Mr. Proner was already working on the case.
In the beginning, it did not look like Ms. Newcomer was going to be successful as she eventually was in obtaining a multi million dollar settlement. In addition to having to deal with a police report which indicated that the accident was entirely Ms. Newcomer’s fault, the case had to be brought in Lancaster County. Lancaster is known to be one of the worst places in Pennsylvania for an accident victim to bring a law suit because the juries there are very conservative and do not like to award large sums of money to personal injury claimants.
When Mr. Proner initially contacted Armstrong’s attorney, they professed shock that he had even agreed to take the case in light of the information contained in the police report. Mr. Proner, however, commenced his own investigation and personally interviewed the witnesses listed on the police report. He subpoenaed each of them to give a deposition and it soon became clear that the witnesses weren’t at all as sure of what they had seen as the police report indicated. Mr. Proner’s handling of the witnesses provided to be the turning point in the case and Armstrong started taking the claim seriously.
Mr. Proner hired an Accident Reconstruction Engineer, a trucking expert, numerous medical experts, a life care planner and had a computer animation done of the accident. He notified Armstrong that he intended to call at least 15 witnesses to testify on Ms. Newcomer’s behalf at the trial which was scheduled to begin on September 17, 2007. Three days before the trial was scheduled to start, Armstrong, who had been vigorously defending the case for nearly four years, agreed to pay the $5,100,000.00 which Mr. Proner was demanding. Ms. Newcomer is currently looking into options with regard to a structured settlement to provide for the even greater financial gain in the future.
Mitchell Proner successfully settled case during trial for $3.5 million.
Mitchell Proner was able to uncover key evidence while his client was still in the hospital. Mr. Proner was originally contacted by the brother-in-law of a woman who was left unconscious after falling down a flight of stairs. Mr. Proner went to the accident scene while the woman was still in the hospital. He found numerous code violations at the staircase. He immediately had an engineer examine and take photos of the stairway. Shortly thereafter the owners of the stairway repaired the stairs as part of a large renovation project. Mitchell Proner was able to show photos of the pre-accident conditions and have his expert testify at trial as to the numerous code violations that led to his client falling down the flight of stairs. During the trial the defendants agreed to pay Mr. Proner’s demand of $3.5 Million dollars.
The facts of the case are as follows:
While returning home from work as a production coordinator for an import export company on May 29, 2003, the 33-year-old plaintiff, May Tsoi, fell down the stairs and was knocked unconscious at a New York City subway station located in 40th Street and Broadway. Ms. Tsoi was taken to St. Vincent’s Hospital by ambulance. She regained consciousness at the hospital, but remained lethargic. She was diagnosed with a fractured skull and later had a seizure disorder.
Although the hospital records indicated that the plaintiff had amnesia with regard to the facts of the accident, subsequent to her discharge the plaintiff recalled that her heel had gotten caught in one of the pits in the cement and that the hand rail was loose. The plaintiff was able to identify in a photo the pit that caused her heel to get caught. The defect in the cement was approximately three inches long and ¼ of an inch deep.
Plaintiff was unable to return to the position she had previous to the accident earning $40,000 per year. Eight months later plaintiff returned to work at another position which paid approximately $30,000 annually. As a result of the accident, plaintiff had persistent complaints of seizure disorder, memory loss, headaches, decreased energy and loss of smell and taste. She sustained approximately $28,000 in medical expenses.
Plaintiff claimed that the defendant, the New York City Transit Authority, was negligent in allowing the subway stairway to have a defective surface and a handrail that was not properly fastened to the wall. During the trial the plaintiff’s engineer indicated that from his inspection of the stairway he can conclude that the defect in the cement was of the nature that would have developed over years of neglect and failure to repair.
The engineer also testified that it was obvious that the Transit Authority had made numerous unsuccessful attempts to secure the handrail and that it should have been replaced prior to the accident. The defendant claimed that the defects were deminimus and that there was no prior notice.
Result:
Settled on the eve of trial for $3,500,000.00
Mitchell Proner wins 3.3 million dollar verdict.
In April 19, 2007, a Supreme Court New York County jury returned a verdict in the case of Florencio Hernandez v. Michelle Vavra , Liberty Lines, Inc., Evelio Torres and Mungo One, Inc, awarding the Plaintiff, Mr. Proner's client Florencio Hernandez $3,309,000. The case was tried before the Honorable Justice of the Supreme Court Carol Huff. The award came on a case the Defendants were only offering $150,000 prior to trial. Mr. Hernandez suffered a stroke while in the hospital after being struck as a pedestrian by a taxicab that was involved in an accident with a bus.
The Defendant's claimed his stroke was unrelated to the accident and was because he had seven high risk factors for a stroke unrelated to the accident including prior strokes, diabetes, high blood pressure, a history of heart ailments, arteriosclerosis, and smoking. When the accident happened Mr. Hernandez was already disabled from his prior heart condition unrelated to the accident and was in fact walking to his doctor's office for a post operative visit to his Doctor after having four heart stints placed one week prior to the accident. Mr. Proner obviously convinced the jury that Mr. Hernandez's stoke was related to the accident and his quality of life subsequent to the accident was greatly diminished.
September, 2007 Pedestrian Hit by Truck Settlement $2.6 Million
Mitchell Proner was successful in getting a $2.6 Million settlement for his client who sustained head and ankle injuries when she was hit by a truck while crossing the street on a dark rainy night. The settlement was especially appreciated by his client because another prior attorney, that Mr. Proner substituted, wanted to settle the case for $1.2 Million.
When someone is unhappy with their attorney they have the right to changes lawyers at anytime. Mr. Proner’s client came to him under these circumstances, Sheila Hurley was not originally represented by Proner & Proner. In the Fall of 2006, Ms. Hurley was unhappy with the advice her attorney was giving her. Her attorney had recommended a settlement of $1.2 million. This prior attorney said it was a fair offer because there was only $2 million in insurance coverage. He also said that she had a difficult claim because she did not remember how her accident happened and there were no eyewitnesses to support her story.
After searching for a new attorney to get a second opinion, she decided to hire Proner & Proner. Mr. Proner immediately began motion practice and discovered that it was $3 million in coverage, not $2 million in coverage. The insurance company lawyers were playing tricks or were simply sloppy. Mr. Proner went to the accident scene, interviewed witnesses, and hired new experts. Mr. Proner was able to settle the claim on the eve of trail for $2.6 million.
The facts of the accident are as follows:
Sheila Hurley, a 49-year-old registered nurse, was walking to go to work during a rainstorm at 11:30p.m. on April 26, 2004 when she was struck by the defendant’s motor vehicle while attempting to cross the street at the intersection of 1st Avenue and Houston Street in New York, New York. The accident was witnessed by a woman approximately 20 feet away. The witness could not place the plaintiff, who was wearing a black raincoat, in the crosswalk prior to the accident and was unsure what color the traffic light that controlled the intersection was. The plaintiff sustained a fractured ankle and traumatic brain injury which required a craniotomy, and has post traumatic amnesia and no recollection of the accident.
Although the plaintiff was able to resume many of her normal daily activities, she continued to suffer from significant cognitive deficiencies and behavioral changes. She was permanently disabled from returning to her employment as a nurse as a result of the accident. In addition, she sustained medical expenses totaling approximately $125,000.
Plaintiff alleged that defendant was negligent in not seeing the pedestrian in the crosswalk and striking the pedestrian with defendant’s truck. Defendant alleged that the plaintiff walked off the curb into the path of the truck, against the light and outside of the crosswalk. The plaintiff obtained an order precluding the defendant driver from testifying at trial due to his failure to appear for a court ordered deposition.
Result:
Settled on the eve of trial for $2,600,000.00
Proner & Proner Wins Jury Trial in Scooter Accident Case October 2006
On October 12, 2006, Mitchell Proner wins another jury trial in the case of Conlin v. Rob’s Towing, Supreme Court, Suffolk County in the State of New York. This case was referred to Mitchell Proner for trial by the attorney of record Gino Giorgini, Esq. The accident took place on April 14, 2001. At the time of the accident Mr. Conlin was riding a scooter and was hit by a flat bed tow truck. The tow truck was turning into a driveway to unload a car it was carrying on the flatbed. Mr. Conlin was going straight. At the accident scene, Mr. Conlin received three tickets, all of which were dismissed. The police report had the cause of the accident as being Mr. Conlin’s failure to see the tow truck. Mr. Conlin gave sworn testimony at his deposition prior to trial that he never saw the tow truck, not even a second before. Mr. Giorgini demanded the entire insurance policy of $300,000 on his client’s behalf. The insurance company refused, saying the accident was Mr. Conlin’s fault since he failed to see the tow truck.
In a four day trial, Mr. Proner used eye witness and engineering testimony to convince the jury of the tow truck’s fault for the accident. After Mr. Proner’s successful jury verdict on Mr. Conlin’s behalf, the insurance company for the towing company paid the entire insurance policy of $300,000.
Motorcycle Accident Claim Settles August 2006
In August 2006 Mitchell Proner settled a motorcycle accident claim on behalf of a Proner & Proner client for $900,000. The case involved a broken ankle sustained in an intersection accident in February 2004 in Queens, New York. The defendant driver drove his car making a left turn into the path of the motorcycle. Mr. Proner convinced the insurance carrier the accident was the fault of the car driver and the injuries sustained had a permanent effect on the health and earning capacity of his client. His client was very satisfied with the settlement and is setting up a college fund for his child and is buying a home. He has also already purchased three motorcycles with the settlement proceeds.
Proner & Proner Wins Jury Trial in Car Accident Case August 2006
Mitchell Proner was again successful in another jury trial. On August 17, 2006, two clients from the law firm of Proner & Proner were awarded $1,100,000 after a jury verdict in Kings Count Supreme Court New York State. The clients were injured in an accident that took place in 2003 when the car they were passengers in hit a guardrail. The clients each sustained a broken wrist. Prior to the trial the defense attorney said the case was not worth over $100,000. After the jury verdict the defendant settled the case for the entire amount of the $1,100,000 verdict, subject to a confidentiality agreement that prevents us from disclosing more details of this significant recent victory.
Proner & Proner Wins Jury Trial in Motorcycle Accident Case July 2006
In Supreme Court, Suffolk County Mitchell Proner was successful in the case of Gorden v. Usry in proving the accident was 100 percent the fault of the defendant, Usry. Mr. Proner represented Mr. Gorden who sustained a shoulder injury in November of 2002 when he laid down his motorcycle after he claimed the car being driven by Mr. Usry went through a stop sign.
The police at the scene let Mr. Usry go, saying there was no contact between the vehicles. Mr. Usry’s name did not even appear on the police report. The police attributed the fault of the accident to Mr. Gorden for losing control of his motorcycle because he thought a car was going to go into the intersection. Mr. Gorden saw Mr. Usry’s vehicle in the neighborhood after the accident, got the license plate, and contacted Mr. Proner.
After a three-day trial, Mr. Proner proved to the jury that it was not the motorcyclist who was at fault for the accident but the defendant, Mr. Usry. This was a significant victory because not only did the police officer blame the motorcyclist but the defendant car driver was an ordained minister who appeared in court with full clerical garments including the white collar. The insurance company for the defendant settled the case for the entire insurance policy of $100,000 after the trial.
Mitchell Proner Honored by the National Coalition of Motorcyclists
Mitchell Proner was duly honored by notice of the forthcoming publication of the fact summaries of two motorcycle cases handled by Mr. Proner in the newsletter of the National Coalition of Motorcyclists (NCOM). The newsletter is scheduled for distribution at the annual convention of NCOM in May 2007. Cases are selected by Richard Lester, Esq. founder of the NCOM, on the basis of exemplary legal work in representation of a motorcycle accident victim. The annual NCOM convention routinely has over 2,000 motorcyclists in attendance.
Proner & Proner Articles
- Kicking Tires
- Understanding New York State Auto Insurance – What's Required and How Does It Work?
- Think You Are Covered? Think Again!
- "Dada, Where Are the Twin Towers?" – 9/11 from a New York City Biker's Perspective
- How to talk to a cop
- Motorcyclist Tips
- Rider Fatalities Up Slightly, Crash Study Needed
Kicking Tires
By Mitchell Proner
Let’s face it. If you ride a motorcycle long enough you are going to come across a driver of a car that makes a stupid move because "they just didn’t see you." Most riders know the rules about daytime running lights and reflective tape on your helmet. It is more important to know what can be done when that little square of reflective tape you have on your helmet just isn’t enough.
Understanding New York State Auto Insurance – What's Required and How Does It Work?
By Mitchell Proner
Purchasing and understanding insurance coverage is often a confusing and frustrating endeavor for most consumers. I have met very few insurance agents who are willing to take the time to fully explain the different types of coverage that are available. As a result, many motorists do not fully understand their coverage, nor the importance of additional coverage, until it is too late...
Think You Are Covered? Think Again!
By Mitchell Proner
A common mistake made by motorists is to assume that by purchasing the required limits they are covered in auto accidents. However, after an auto accident occurs and medical or property bills skyrocket past your coverage limits or your insurance company informs you that your accident isn't covered as you thought, you may discover too late the importance of purchasing additional coverage...
"Dada, Where Are the Twin Towers?" - 9/11 from a New York City Biker's Perspective
Of course for me, like everyone else, it started out as an ordinary day. Most days, when I'm not in court, I walk to work. While doing so, I suddenly I realized I had forgotten to tell my wife about an appointment that we had at my son's nursery school. I repeatedly tried to call her but could not get a line on my cell phone. Unbeknownst to me, the first plane had struck...
How to Talk to a Cop
The real question is how can you handle a traffic stop without leaving with a huge ticket or worse? The first thing to remember is that ...
Motorcyclist Tips
Spring is finally here. While most of you already know how to get your sleds running, please take time to read this article. Perhaps I can share some information about how accidents happen...
Rider Fatalities Up Slightly, Crash Study Needed
Pickerington, Ohio — Motorcycling-related fatalities were up 3 percent for the year 2002 compared to the previous year, according to preliminary estimates ...
If you've enjoyed these articles about our personal injury cases, and a variety of other legal topics, New York City's Proner & Proner would be happy to provide you with more information. Your case review is free, so don't hesitate to contact Proner & Proner today!
