ADDITIONAL VERDICTS OF PARTICULAR INTEREST. Insurance Obligation. $______ VERDICT

• Pages: 27-28

Landlord’s Negligence

$74,000 RECOVERY

Landlord’s negligence – Minor plaintiff sustains

rat bite injuries in family’s apartment – Right hand

index finger dorsal aspect bite marks – 1 cm

irregular wound at proximal interphalangeal joint

– Cellulitis of right index finger – Edema and

erythema of 2nd digit – Surgery required.

Bronx County, NY

In this landlord’s negligence action, the minor

plaintiff sustained rat bites due to an infestation

in his family’s apartment which resulted in serious

complications. The defendant landlord company

generally denied negligence.

On February 25, 2019, the minor plaintiff was lawfully

inside his family’s apartment, located at 1511

Sheridan Avenue in the Bronx. At the time of the inci-

dent, the minor plaintiff was traversing inside the

apartment kitchen. Suddenly and without warning,

multiple rats emerged from a hole in the kitchen wall,

coming into contact with the minor plaintiff. The mi-

nor plaintiff was bitten by the rats several times,

causing him to be injured.

The plaintiffs maintained that the defendants were

negligent in failing to maintain safe and adequate

conditions on the premises, in failing to address a

known rat infestation, in negligently allowing an infes-

tation of rats to exist and remain on the premises of

the minor plaintiff’s apartment, in failing to maintain

sanitary conditions on the premises, in failing to pro-

vide adequate living conditions for building tenants

including the minor plaintiff, in failing to hire and em-

ploy exterminators on the premises in a timely man-

ner, and failing to regard for the health and safety of

building tenants including the minor plaintiff. Conse-

quently, the minor plaintiff sustained injuries, including

right hand index finger dorsal aspect bite marks, a 1

centimeter irregular wound at the proximal

interphalangeal joint, cellulitis of the right index finger,

edema and erythema of the second digit of the right

hand with pustule, right hand medial palmar aspect

bite mark with swelling and redness, and elevated C-

reactive protein. The minor plaintiff’s injuries required

surgery, including incision and drainage to repair and

prevent the onset of sepsis.

The parties entered into a settlement for $74,000.

REFERENCE

A.D., an infant under the age of 14 years, by his

mother and natural guardian, Fatoumata Tall vs.

Sheridan 1511 Llc, Asden Management Llc, Asden

Management Ii Llc. Index no. 20957/2020E; Judge

Laura G. Douglas, 10-25-21.

Attorney for plaintiff: David Peter Lesch of Lesch &

Lesch, PC in The Bronx, NY. Attorney for defendant:

Marisa Goetz of Goetz Schenker Blee & Wiederhorn,

LLP in New York, NY.

Insurance Obligation

$150,694 VERDICT

Insurance obligation – Breach of homeowners’

insurance policy – Failure to adequately pay claim

for interior damages caused by storm.

Broward County, FL

The plaintiffs in this action asserted that the roof

of their house suffered a direct physical loss

during the period of a homeowners’ policy issued

by the defendant insurance carrier. The plaintiff

claimed the defendant wrongfully failed to

adequately pay the claim, in breach of the policy.

The case was consolidated with an action brought

by a remediation company for mitigation of water

damage to the plaintiffs’ home. The defendant

denied that the plaintiffs sustained a covered loss

and asserted a number of affirmative defenses.

The plaintiffs alleged that on June 6, 2017, their prop-

erty sustained substantial damages resulting from a

heavy wind and rain storm which allowed water to

enter the premises. The plaintiffs made a claim to the

defendant. Evidence showed that on July 13, 2017,

the defendant acknowledged coverage for certain

items and indicated that it was making a unilateral

payment of $4,468 conditioned on a full release. The

plaintiffs contended that the amount offered was in-

adequate to repair the covered damages sustained.

The defendant argued that there was no evidence of

wind damage to the plaintiff’s roof and that the dam-

ages at issue was caused by neglect and/or wear

and tear which was specifically excluded from cover-

age under the policy. The defense also asserted that

the plaintiffs failed to provide prompt notice of the

loss thereby prejudicing the defendant’s investigation

and that the plaintiffs made material false statements

regarding their claim.

According to the defendant, the plaintiffs had previ-

ously received payment from the defendant for dam-

ages resulting from a dishwasher leak which occurred

on April 4, 2010. The defense argued that plaintiffs

were claiming the same damages in the subject

claim. The allegation was denied by the plaintiffs.

VERDICTS OF PARTICULAR INTEREST 27

National Jury Verdict Review & Analysis

Subscribe Now