Settlement Alert: Six-Figure Settlement for Dog-Bite Victim

The Law Office of Patrick Patel is thrilled to announce a six-figure settlement in favor of a client who had been viciously attacked by a pit bull in March of 2021. While we strive for excellence in every file, cases such as this are all the more satisfying when we are able to help innocent victims, and when we are able to achieve excellent results in difficult cases.

The facts of case are difficult to digest and are too graphic for discussion here. The victim, an elderly woman, was mauled when a vicious pit bull who lived at a neighboring home pushed through a chain link fence and attacked the Plaintiff totally unprovoked. Her injuries were extreme in nature, hospitalizing the Plaintiff and requiring multiple surgeries to help remedy, of which she has permanent residuals.

In New Jersey, liability is strictly imposed on the owners of dogs for dog bite injuries. However, this is where the difficulty in this case exists. Unfortunately for the innocent victim here, the owners of the vicious animal were tenants renting the home, and were uninsured and insolvent. Collecting any judgment from these individuals would be an impossibility. However, with the case in the hands of Partner, Joe Siclari, Esq., an investigation was launched, hiring investigators and deposing many neighbors in the area who all told the story of how the animal was known to have vicious propensities. Engineers were consulted to examine the defective fence utilized to try to contain the animal, and medical professionals were retained to opine on the nature, severity, and permanence of the Plaintiff’s injuries. The Law Office of Patrick Patel was able to uncover a scenario where the owner of the property knew/should have known that the dog posed a threat to the safety of the public, and that the property was defective to contain it.

Ultimately, the culmination of the hard work put in yields significant settlement in favor of the Plaintiff and a result we are extremely proud of.

Joe Siclari, Esq. argues before the New Jersey Supreme Court

On January 20, 2021, Joe Siclari, Esq. of the Law Office of Patrick Patel, argued before the New Jersey Supreme Court in the matter of Huggins v. Aguilar, on behalf of the injured accident victim Huggins.

The issue before the Supreme Court is an insurance coverage dispute, mainly between New Jersey Manufacturers and Federal Ins. Co., though Plaintiff Huggins has a significant vested interest in the outcome as it would directly impact how much coverage would be afforded the tortfeasor against whom Huggins could recover.

The Plaintiff was injured when his vehicle was struck my Aguilar, who was making an illegal U-turn. At the time of the accident, Aguilar was operating a loaner vehicle owned by a dealership, which was given to her while her car was being serviced. Unfortunately, Aguilar had only a minimal insurance policy of her own. The Plaintiff’s own UIM carrier argued that their coverage should not be triggered since the vehicle owned by the dealership had a liability policy which should provide additional coverage to Aguilar. That insurer, Federal, denied coverage, citing an alleged “step-down” clause that dropped coverage to nothing. NJM and Huggins argue that this is not a valid step down, but rather an illegal escape provision.

The Plaintiff and NJM have already won at the trial and appellate level, but Federal applied for certiorari to the New Jersey Supreme Court, which was granted. After an exhausting 2 hours of argument by all parties, the seven Honorable Justices of the Supreme Court have the matter in their hands to decide.

While we are hopeful for a favorable outcome, it is a privilege and an honor to appear on the biggest of stages in the New Jersey Court system, and our pleasure to advocate hard on behalf of our client.

-Joe Siclari, Esq.

ALL charges DISMISSED against former NY Giant DeAndre Baker

After months of tireless work, The Law Office of Patrick Patel had all charges DISMISSED against our client DeAndre Baker. Baker was a first-round draft pick cornerback of the NY Giants, who was accused of committing an armed robbery at a party in Florida in April of 2020.

Patrick Patel, an integral part of the legal team representing the wrongfully accused DeAndre Baker, had steadfastly advocated that Baker was himself the victim of a nefarious plot to extort large sums of money from him in exchange for a recantation of the false allegations against him by the supposed victims. While this story seemed outlandish, and while Mr. Baker was being tried in the court of public opinion, Patrick Patel, Esq. and his colleague Bradford Cohen, Esq. continued to fight for Baker, even when formal charges were levied. Undeterred and through zealous advocacy and in-depth investigations, Patrick Patel and his legal team were able to erode the credibility of witnesses and allegations to the degree that the State of Florida agreed that there was no way to prosecute this matter. All charges against Baker were dismissed, finally ending this saga for our client. The same day that charges were dropped against Baker, Florida attorney William Dean was arrested on charges of extortion for his alleged role in attempting to wring money out of Baker in exchange for recanted testimony, thus corroborating the claims of Baker’s legal team and vindicating Patrick Patel and Brad Cohen, who said that all along.

With the charges dropped and Baker immediately taken off the NFL’s exempt list, he signed as a free agent with the Kansas City Chiefs, one of the top NFL teams who currently share the best record in the league.

Whether you’re an average person who has been injured or accused of a crime, or a pro athlete, the Law Office of Patrick Patel will fight hard for you and your case.

You can read more about the case of DeAndre Baker from the links below;

https://nypost.com/2020/11/16/deandre-bakers-robbery-charges-dropped-after-alleged-extortion-attempt/

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/30330519/all-charges-dropped-former-new-york-giants-cb-deandre-baker

https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/16/us/deandre-baker-charges-dropped-trnd-spt/index.html

Patrick G. Patel defends NY Giants' cornerback DeAndre Baker

The Law Office of Patrick G. Patel, along with co-counsel Bradford Cohen, Esq., have been entrusted with the handling of the defense of DeAndre Baker, NY Giants cornerback, who has been accused of armed robbery.

While we cannot comment publicly here on this pending matter, please stay posed for updates in the New York Post, NY Daily News, ESPN, and other news outlets for updates.

Mr. Patel brings decades of legal experience, along with his aggressive attitude, to provide a zealous defense when it matters the most and everything is on the line.

https://nypost.com/2020/07/11/deandre-baker-witness-saga-sets-up-complicated-giants-decision/

Blog: It's not free money!

So today I had an all-too-familiar situation arise. A potential new client comes into the office and wants to talk to me about pursuing a personal injury case for complaints of neck and back pain they’ve been having since they were rear-ended. As I’m perusing their materials and asking all of the pertinent questions regarding their treatment and injuries, they inform me that they were sent a check for $600 by the insurance company of the car that struck them. Worse yet, that they signed documents and accepted the money.

Without realizing what had happened, this person completely threw away their personal injury case on their own. The paper they signed? A Bodily Injury release. By signing it and accepting the measly $600, they had released all of their claims for personal injury against the person that struck them.

This is an common practice among the insurance companies, whose sole purpose is to circumvent your rights and maneuver their way out of responsibility as quickly and inexpensively as possible. The liable party’s insurance company will find out where you work, call you and ask questions about your medical treatment, your injuries, etc., and then make you offer to resolve the case quickly with a check. While you think they may be helping you, they’re actually helping themselves, by absolving themselves of responsibility and buying out of lengthy litigation and a legitimate settlement quickly and cheaply by dealing with you directly before you’ve retained counsel.

You can do a couple things to help make sure this practice never robs you of your rights.

1 - Don’t ever speak to the other vehicle’s insurance company. They’re not asking you questions for their health, you’re on a recorded line, and they’re gathering the information they will use later to try to hurt your case. You have no responsibility to speak to the other driver’s insurance. Contact an attorney as soon as possible, who will speak on your behalf.

2 - Don’t ever sign anything or accept money without consulting a personal injury attorney. The insurance company is banking on you, as someone not familiar with the law or your rights, to waive your rights for a fast, but very small payout. By doing this, they are taking advantage of your ignorance of the legal process and litigation to benefit themselves at your expense. It’s NOT free money! It’s money in exchange for your rights, specifically your right to bring a lawsuit later on. Talk to an attorney to make sure you are not giving up your rights.

-Joe Siclari, Esq.

Joe Siclari, Esq. wins full-policy verdict in hit-and-run auto trial.

After a three-day trial in Hudson County, Joe Siclari, Esq. of the Law Office of Patrick Patel, on behalf of the Plaintiff, was awarded the limits of available insurance coverage in connection with injuries sustained in a June 6, 2016 auto accident. The offer to settle the claim before trial was a mere $1,500.00, and the jury awarded the full limits of the available $25,000.00 insurance policy available, over 16x the original offer to settle.

In this matter, liability was conceded by the Defendant, who acknowledged rear-ending the Plaintiff on Kennedy Boulevard in Jersey City, New Jersey and responsibility for the collision was not a factor in the trial. However, the Plaintiff had well-documented pre-existing complaints of neck and back pain from an auto accident in 2012, proven by MRIs, which were also the parts of her body injured in the 2016 collision. The Plaintiff underwent conservative treatment for the 2016 injuries with chiropractic care and no injections or surgeries.

Importantly, the Plaintiff in this matter was subject to the New Jersey Tort Threshold, which requires that the Plaintiff suffer a “permanent injury, within a reasonable degree of medical probability, proven by objective, credible medical evidence” as a mandatory condition of recovery. Obviously, the Defendant in this matter defended the claim on the basis that the Plaintiff’s injuries were pre-existing, not related to the 2016 collision and not permanent in nature.

After approximately two-hours of deliberations, on February 21, 2019, the jury found unanimously that the Plaintiff had sustained a permanent injury, and awarded the full-limits of the available $25,000.00 insurance policy available to the Plaintiff.

Law Office of Patrick Patel involved in NJ Supreme Court decision on Tort Claims Notice

On January 14, 2019, the New Jersey Supreme Court issued it’s ruling in the matter of O’Donnell v. New Jersey Turnpike Authority, A-69-17, reversing the Appellate Division’s prior ruling, reinstating the Plaintiff’s Tort Claims Notice and remanding the matter back to the trial level. This is a tremendous victory for the Plaintiffs of New Jersey in the fight to hold public entities accountable in civil suits.

For those who are unaware, whenever a cause of action is brought against a public entity, whether it be NJ Transit, the State of New Jersey, a local police department, a doctor employed by UMDNJ or other State run facility, etc., a Title 59 Notice of Claim form must be filled out and served on the public entity against whom relief is sought, within 90 days of the accident/cause of action. This essentially creates two separate Statutes of Limitations; one for the Tort Claims Notice, and another for the actual filing of the Complaint (which must be done no less than 6 months following the Tort Claims Notice). If the deadline for either is missed, it is an absolute bar to recovery and the case cannot go on. The only exception to the 90-day statute of limitations is if the Plaintiff can show “extraordinary circumstances” as to why the 90-day deadline was missed, and make a motion to allow a late Notice of Claim within 1 year from the date of the cause of action. Even still, practically speaking the 90-day requirement for serving a Notice of Claim is strictly construed, harshly enforced, and can be a significant impediment in bringing a case against a public entity.

The O’Donnell matter arises out of a tragic set of circumstances. Timothy O’Donnell and his minor child were driving on the westbound New Jersey Turnpike Extension at the 14C interchange in Jersey City when their vehicle, which was stopped in the toll plaza, was struck in the rear at a very high rate of speed by another vehicle. The O’Donnell vehicle was ejected out of the toll plaza, across several lanes, and without a solid divider between eastbound and westbound lanes, into oncoming traffic on the Turnpike extension, where it was then struck head-on by an ambulance. Sadly, both Timothy O’Donnell and his minor child perished as a result of their injuries. Pamela O’Donnell, the widow of Timothy, consulted counsel well within the 90-day period, and he filed a Tort Claims Notice against the NJ Turnpike Authority on grounds that there should have been a divider to prevent traffic from crossing directions. Unfortunately, this attorney served the Notice of Claim on the State of New Jersey, a separate public entity from the New Jersey Turnpike Authority, and in doing so, blew the 90-day Statute of Limitations and cut off O’Donnell’s ability to pursue a claim against the Turnpike Authority. After finding new counsel, this mistake was quickly discovered and an amended Notice of Claim was filed with the proper party, and new counsel moved the Court for permission to file a late Notice of Claim, which was granted by the Court. Subsequently, the New Jersey Turnpike Authority appealed this decision, and was successful in overturning the trial court’s decision, which dismissed the O’Donnell’s claim against the NJ Turnpike Authority. The O’Donnell suit was filed in Middlesex County.

Separately from the O’Donnell matter, The Law Office of Patrick Patel represented the driver of the ambulance that was struck by the O’Donnell vehicle, who also sustained serious injuries as a result of the collision. Recognizing the same issue, The Law Office of Patrick Patel properly and timely served the Notice of Claim on the New Jersey Turnpike Authority under the Title 59 requirements, and filed suit in Hudson County, the site of the collision.

Subsequently, the dockets for the two cases were consolidated in Hudson County, at which point new counsel for O’Donnell became aware that the Turnpike Authority was served with a timely Notice of Claim for the same theory of liability in the companion action. This created a unique situation where there were two plaintiffs in one case, with the same cause of action, arising out of the same incident, but with the NJ Turnpike Authority a viable defendant as to one Plaintiff but not the other.

Armed with this new information, counsel for O’Donnell pursued this matter to the Supreme Court of New Jersey with the novel legal question; would the Tort Claims Notice from the companion action allow for constructive notice of the pending lawsuit in theirs? On January 14, 2019, the Supreme Court ruled, overturning the Appellate Division’s dismissal and reinstating the case as to the Turnpike Authority in the O’Donnell matter. The timely filed notice in the companion matter that set forth the same cause of action and theory of liability removed the prejudice to the Turnpike Authority, as they were on notice of the issue. Furthermore, the Notice of Claim form submitted by the Law Office of Patrick Patel included a copy of the police report from the collision, which listed the O’Donnell vehicle and occupants thereof, effectively putting the Turnpike Authority on notice that litigation involving the decedents could be anticipated.

This matter has been remanded to the trial court and is still pending a resolution.

SO WHAT DOES THIS DECISION MEAN FOR PLAINTIFFS IN OTHER CASES?

The O’Donnell decision is a major victory for Plaintiffs who are seeking relief against public entities with Title 59 protection.

The 90-day statute of limitations for the service of a Notice of Claim is obviously not a widely known rule among the general public who may not be aware of the legal ramifications of waiting to consult a lawyer or seek legal advice. Individuals may inadvertently waive their right to pursue legal action merely by waiting too long to seek the advice of counsel, at which point there may be nothing the lawyer can do to help if the 90 days has elapsed. In situations where there are multiple Plaintiffs in a cause of action, the O’Donnell decision paves the way for a relaxation of the Draconian application of this 90-day Notice of Claim deadline. A hypothetical example of a situation where this could occur would be a bus crash involving NJ Transit with multiple passengers injured. As long as one passenger put the public entity on notice properly, other passengers who did not could theoretically continue with their claim provided they acted diligently in seeking legal advice and moved the Court to file a late notice of claim within 1 year. This ruling is a solid step away from the black-and-white application of the notice rule, and more congruent with basic fairness, common sense, and the principles of Title 59 in that the public entity is not prejudiced.

-Joseph A. Siclari, Esq.

You can read entire O’Donnell decision here.