Profile cover photo
Profile photo
Martin Colin, P.C.
Martin Colin, P.C.'s posts

Post has attachment

Post has attachment
Martin & Colin, P.C. - Settlement of Bus Accident Case | Personal Injury Lawyers & Attorneys White Plains, New York -

WSJ Video - Richest and Poorest States -- Steve Moore on a new report on economic policies - -

Video - WSJ: Hawking's Moral Black Hole -- Sohrab Ahmari on Stephen Hawking's Israeli boycott -

Our Recent Win Featured in New York Law Journal – Dec. 2012

Martin & Colin, P.C. obtained a victory in Rockland County for our client seriously injured in a bus accident. We successfully petitioned the Supreme Court, Rockland County, to set aside an arbitration award. The case was featured in the New York Law Journal as a significant decision of interest to the entire legal community. Here’s the NYLJ article, case summary and full decision:

Matter of Andrews v. County of Rockland

Rockland County : Alternative Dispute Resolution

New York Law Journal Summary of Decision:

Andrews sought to overturn an arbitration decided against her in this personal injury action. She was injured when the Rockland County T.R.I.P.S. bus she was riding rounded a corner and she was thrown from her seat. The arbitrator concluded he did not need to decide if the driver was negligent as Andrews was not wearing a seatbelt, ruling she would not have fallen had she been wearing it, thus was barred from recovering regardless if respondent was negligent. The court concluded that while the award offered “barely colorable justification for the outcome reached,” it was fatally flawed as the arbitrator failed to determine the percentage of culpability on Andrews’ part for failing to wear her seatbelt, and the driver’s part, if any. It noted the arbitrator appeared to have concluded the accident was solely Andrews’ fault, but stated it was incumbent on the arbitrator to decide the percentage of liability attaching to each party. The court ruled it could not speculate as to the arbitrator’s intent. It granted the petition to set aside the award and remanded the case to be heard by a different arbitrator.

Post has attachment

Victory at Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board

Martin & Colin, P.C. has obtained a reversal of a prior ruling and reinstatement of unemployment benefits for our client.

Our law firm does NOT usually handle matters involving unemployment benefits.  However, we are experienced courtroom attorneys, and when an established client has a legal problem, we help them whenever we can.

In this case, our client is a member of a family for whom we have rendered legal services on several different occasions.  She required hospitalization for a brief illness and, during her hospitalization, her physician-employer replaced her with a new employee.  Without a job, our client applied for, and received, unemployment benefits.

However, our client’s employer contested her right to collect unemployment benefits, and after a hearing, the New York State Department of Labor determined that our client was ineligible for unemployment benefits.

Our law firm was asked to enter the case and assist the client, and we did so.  We sought to reopen the hearing; and at a hearing before an administrative law judge, we convinced the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that:

Our client had good cause to reopen the case;
Our client was eligible to receive unemployment benefits because she did not quit her job; and
Our client did not make willful misrepresentations to obtain unemployment benefits.

At the conclusion, the Administrative Law Judge overruled the initial determinations of the Department of Labor and restored our client’s eligibility for unemployment benefits.

Although we do not usually get involved in unemployment benefits cases, in this case we were able to obtain for our client the benefits she was entitled to and had earned.

¡Nuestra Experiencia le Ayudará a Ganar su Caso!

Post has attachment
According to one study released today:
At its most fundamental level, economic activity is no more than an exchange between strangers. It depends, therefore, on a degree of trust between strangers. Since money is the agent of exchange, it is the agent of trust. Debasing money therefore debases trust. History is replete with Great Disorders in which social cohesion has been undermined by currency debasements. The multi-decade credit inflation can now be seen to have had similarly corrosive effects. Yet central banks continue down the same route. The writing is on the wall. Further debasement of money will cause further debasement of society. I fear a Great Disorder.      Read more here:

Post has attachment
According to an article in today's New York Law Journal, our judges are upset at the criticism aimed at them as a result of certain stop and frisk decisions in which the courts ruled that the police had overstepped their legal authority. I could not disagree more. Public Criticism of the Judiciary Must Never Stop. (It is essential to a free society.)

Here is an excerpt from the article. The link to the full article is at the bottom.

New York Law Journal
Stunned by the harsh reaction to two recent 3-2 rulings of the Appellate Division, First Department, faulting police stop-and-frisks, state court officials and bar organizations have urged critics of the opinions to step back from what they regard as irresponsible personal attacks on the judges who voted to overturn the arrests of two teens after unconstitutional searches turned up loaded semi-automatic handguns.
Some of the criticism has been "simply unfair and misguided," said Chief Administrative Judge A. Gail Prudenti. "When you have difficult cases with difficult issues and judges divided, you have to expect some sort of criticism," said Prudenti, the former presiding justice of the Second Department.
However, while critics can disagree "intellectually" about court decisions, "we all have the responsibility to try very hard not to destroy public confidence in any branch of government," she said.

Post has attachment
Looks Like New York Getting a Uniform Notice of Claim Act

The NYS Legislature has passed a “Uniform Notice of Claim Act.”  It has not yet been publicly announced whether the Governor will sign the new act into law, but we expect that he will.  The new act simplifies the way an injured party satisfies the condition precedent to suing a governmental entity, and in some cases actually extends the time for an injured party to place the governmental entity on notice.

The act amends the General Municipal Law and certain other statutes (including, for example, the Environmental Conservation Law, the Education Law and the Mental Hygiene Law)  to, among other things, permit claimants to serve a notice of claim on any public corporation by delivery of the notice to the Secretary of State.  The Secretary of State would then be required to forward a copy to the entity or entities named in the notice of claim.  Service of the notice of claim would be complete when served on the Secretary of State.

The bill would also provide for leave to be granted to serve a late notice of claim for “good faith” mistakes in serving a claim on the incorrect public entity, unless it can be demonstrated to the court that the proper public entity suffered substantial prejudice in the investigation or defense of the claim.
Wait while more posts are being loaded