FOR A RECAP, READ THESE PRIOR POSTS:

• Mother of 3 Arrested for Taking Pictures of Tourist Attraction at Airport
• Town of Southampton Defaults in Genovese Lawsuit
• Some Comments on the Nancy Genovese Case
• New Southampton Town Attorney Hired

Many people have been asking for case updates, and quite frankly, nothing exciting has happened yet. The case is proceeding, and there are no major developments. Here’s some procedural updates:

 The Southampton Town Attorney is no longer handling the case. The town hired the law firm of Devitt, Spellman and Barrett LLP, a very well-known and prominent commercial defense law firm, to represent the Town of Southampton and Robert Iberger.

 Nancy Genovese made a motion to extend the time allotted for discovery, stating that the Town of Southampton is cooperating, but they have yet to receive certain disclosures from the County Defendants.

 All discovery has been ordered to be complete by March 16, 2012, All dispositive motions filed by March 30, 2012,  and a pre-trial conference is scheduled for April 27, 2012. If discovery stays on track and there are no settlements, a trial should be scheduled for this summer.

For previous case details, see this post.

Here’s a quick update on the case. Settlement negotiations have stalled, even though the defendants (County of Nassau, Police Officer Faltings, et al) have offered six figures to settle. Yes, that’s right. Nassau County is essentially admitting it was at fault for the botched gun store raid, and now the taxpayers of Nassau County will be forced to foot the bill.

Nassau County has filed a Multiparty Rule 68 Offer of Judgment, offering $200,000 to settle the matter, under the condition that the county and the police department will not have to admit liability. Martin Tretola and T&T Gunnery have so far declined to accept.

Jury selection and trial is scheduled for March 19, 2012, giving the county several more months to up the ante.

The ACLU wants you to know that you have every right to photograph or videotape that police officer, and reinforce that “Taking photographs and video of things that are plainly visible in public spaces is a constitutional right – and that includes the outside of federal buildings, as well as transportation facilities, and police and other government officials carrying out their duties.” They have recently posted a new section on their web site titled Is It Legal to Photograph or Videotape Police?, which is full of valuable information and contains links to guides for photographers.

In Olszewski v Neuman, 2011 NY Slip Op 51287(U), a Nassau County District Court case, tenants sued their landlord for the return of their $2,100 security deposit. The tenants entered into a one-year written lease with their landlord commencing on May 1, 2010, and vacated the apartment on October 30, 2010, seven months before the expiration of the lease term.

The tenants are claiming that they were constructively evicted from their apartment due to lack of heat, unsanitary conditions, and noise caused by other tenants in the building. Constructive eviction is a legal term describing a circumstance where the landlord does something, or fails to do something that he has a legal obligation to do, such as provide heat and water to the apartment, make necessary repairs, etc., and as a result, the apartment is rendered uninhabitable. Typically, in order to succeed on a constructive eviction claim, a tenant must demonstrate that the apartment was rendered so inhabitable by the landlord’s action or lack thereof that the tenant had to vacate the premises.

In this case, the landlord claims that the tenants are not entitled to the return of their security deposit since they breached their lease by moving out early, and since the landlord was under no obligation to make repairs, as the landlord was under no obligation to provide heat during the summertime.

The Facts:

According to the facts of the case, shortly after moving in, the tenants discovered that the thermostat was not working properly and they were without heat. In May of 2010, the tenants notified their landlord of the issue. Some time after the tenants moved in, new tenants moved into another unit in the building. The tenants state that the new tenants caused conditions that disturbed their right to quiet enjoyment of the property. Specifically, the tenants complained to the landlord that the new tenants left trash in the yard causing odor and insect infestation, caused crowding of vehicles and unregistered vehicles on the property, littered, left dog feces all over the yard, and made general complaints of overcrowding and continual noise.

On August 18, 2010, the tenants requested from the landlord that the thermostat be repaired. The landlord never made the repairs, and failed to respond to the tenants. On September 22, 2010, the tenants again complained of the lack of heat, unsanitary living conditions in the common areas, and overcrowding in the adjacent apartment. On September 28, 2010, the landlord responded via text message stating that heat was not necessary in the summer months, and acknowledged that the boiler connecter had not been attached.

On October 4, 2010, the parties met. The tenants advised their landlord that they were vacating the premises, and asked the landlord to let them out of their lease. The landlord refused.

The tenants advised their landlord that they were moving out by letter dated October 15, 2010. They stated that they would vacate and relinquish possession of the premises effective October 30, 2010, due to the lack of heat and other living conditions. The tenants attempted to secure a time and place to surrender the keys to the premises, by letter dated October 23, 2010. The landlord failed to respond.

The tenants advised their landlord by letter dated October 30, 2010, that they were including the keys and photographs of the premises in the mail. They also demanded their $2,100 security deposit and provided a forwarding address. The tenants moved out of the apartment on October 30, 2010.

At trial, the tenants produced a letter from the Village of Cedarhurst stating that on October 20, 2010, the Village performed an inspection of the boiler. The letter confirmed that the heat was not working in the apartment, and that the Village called the landlord to repair the heating. The landlord represented to the Village that the heat was repaired that day.

The tenants allege that the landlord agreed to permit them to break their lease through constructive eviction. The landlord alleges that he never agreed to break of the lease. He states that he performed his obligation under the rental contract. He further states that he was not required to provide heat during the months of May to October. The landlord also claims that the conditions created by the adjoining tenant were not sufficient to rise to the level of a disruption of the tenants’ quiet enjoyment of the property.

Landlord Tenant Law:

A residential lease is a sale of both shelter and services by a landlord. Park West Management Corp. v. Mitchell, 47 NY2d 316 (1979). When a landlord contracts to lease a property, the landlord impliedly warrants: first, that the premises are fit for human habitation; second, that the condition of the premises is in accord with the uses reasonably intended by the parties; and, third, that the tenants are not subjected to any conditions endangering or detrimental to their life, health or safety. Park West Management Corp. v. Mitchell, 47 NY2d 316 (1979).

A landlord can breach these implied warranties by depriving a tenant the quiet enjoyment of the apartment. To establish a breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment, a tenant must show either an actual or constructive eviction. Grammar v. Turits, 706 N.Y.S.2d 455-56 (2d Dep’t 2000). An actual eviction occurs when a tenant is physically ousted from his apartment. A constructive eviction occurs when a landlord’s wrongful acts substantially and materially deprive a tenant of the intended beneficial use and enjoyment of the leased premises. Id. at 455-56.

The Nassau County Public Health Ordinance requires that heat be provided from October 1st through May 31st. During this period, the required minimum temperature is 65 F between 10PM and 6 AM (overnight) and 68 F between 6AM and 10PM (during the day). A tenant is justified in vacating the premises if he/she was deprived of heat for an unreasonable time. Berlinger v. MacDonald ,149AD 5,(1st Dept. 1912)

In this case, the Nassau County District Court found that based on the facts, there was insufficient evidence to support a claim of lack of quiet enjoyment created by the adjoining tenants. In other words, the tenants failed to provide sufficient evidence at trial to establish that the new tenant’s behavior (leaving trash in the yard, overcrowding, excessive noise, etc.) amounted to enough of a disturbance to deprive the tenants of use and enjoyment of their apartment.

In addition, the Nassau County District Court found that the landlord was not required to provide heat during the months of May to September. However, the landlord failed to provide heat during the month of October. Further, the Court found that the failure to furnish heat was due to a defect in the connection of the boiler, which required it to be repaired by the landlord. The landlord was entitled to reasonable time to remedy the defect.

Although the landlord had no duty to provide heat during the summer months, he had the opportunity to repair the defect within a reasonable time before the heating season began. Once the month of October commenced, the landlord was obligated to supply heat to the tenant if the temperature fell below normal standards. Albeit, the landlord was not required to provide heat during the summer months, the tenants continued to complain to the landlord. It was not until the Village of Cedarhurst performed an inspection on October 20th, that the heating was repaired. However, at that point the tenants had secured other housing.

The Nassau County District Court found that it was unreasonable to expect the tenants to remain in the premises with the winter season upon them and during the month of October, after having made numerous complaints to the landlord without any response. As such, the tenants were constructively evicted, and were entitled to the return of their security deposit.

I see the same scenario all the time. A photographer posts some of their best pictures on their website, facebook, or Flickr. Several months later, they open a magazine and see their photo used in an ad, find their photo for sale as a poster on a website, or find their photo elsewhere on the internet.

The first reaction is usually shock. “What the… is that really my photo?!?” The next reaction is typically anger. “How dare they just STEAL my photo and use it like this!” Followed by a thirst for revenge. Hence, where the copyright lawyers come to play.

As upsetting as it is to have one of your photographs stolen, many times it is far more lucrative to be a victim of image theft than it is to license your image with permission. But not every case of copyright infringement is treated equal. How your case is assessed will depend largely on what preparations you made in advance.

In some situations, lawyers will be willing to take your copyright infringement case on a contingency basis (i.e., you won’t have to pay your lawyer any money. He or she will recoup attorney’s fees from the defendant, or will take a percentage of the money recovered as his or her fee). In other situations, lawyers won’t help you unless you pay them, big time.

What can you do to protect yourself against copyright infringement? How can you ensure that you won’t have to pay thousands to get a lawyer to help you if your images are stolen? Follow these two simple steps:

1. REGISTER your photos!

Register your photos with the United States Copyright Office every three months. It only costs $35 per collection to register, and you can upload your photos and finish your application within 10 minutes on line.

“But I thought my copyright exists in my photos as soon as I click the shutter. Why should I also pay to register my photos?”

Yes, you still hold the copyright to your image even if you don’t register (meaning, you still hold basic rights such as the right to reproduce your photo, prepare derivative works, distribute copies, transfer your copyright, etc.). However, registration ensures that you will be eligible to recover statutory damages and attorney’s fees against the person or company who misappropriated your photo. Meaning, you can go after them for big money.

Practically speaking, what this means is this:

-  If you properly and timely registered your photos, and your photos are stolen, a lawyer will most likely help you go after the person or company who misappropriated your photo at no upfront cost to you.

-   If you failed to timely register your photos, a lawyer will most likely want money up front before helping you.

Why does registration make such a big difference to the courts and to lawyers? It’s simple. Courts require you to register your photo before you can initiate a copyright infringement lawsuit, as registration entitles a presumption that you are the copyright owner. As for lawyers, they like money. By properly registering your photo, you ensure that you are eligible for large statutory damages and attorney’s fees.

“If my registered photo is stolen,

how much money can I get?”

If your photos are properly registered when stolen, you are entitled to statutory damages ranging from $750 to $30,000 for “innocent infringement” (meaning, the person or company mistakenly believed they had permission to use your photo), or up to $150,000 for “purposeful infringement” (meaning, they stole your photo, and they knew they were stealing it when they did it). In addition to statutory damages, you may also be entitled to recoup attorney’s fees from your infringer if you are properly registered. And as you can imagine, attorney’s fees in a Federal Court civil action will be no small change.

“I’ve never registered before. Can I register all of the photos I’ve ever taken in one batch, no matter how old the photos are?”

Well, it depends. You can register all of your unpublished photos, at any time, as long as they have not already been infringed. What exactly “publication” means is still a fluctuating issue of interpretation by the Courts, but you will be safest to assume that posting your photos on a highly visited public website such as Flickr or your own highly trafficked personal website constitutes publication.  If your photos have been “published”, or posted on a highly visible place on the internet, you must register those photos within three months of “publication”, or within three months of posting them on the internet. If it’s been more than three months since “publication”, register them anyway, and let your copyright lawyer sort out the details if and when infringement occurs.

If you fail to register your photos prior to infringement, or within three months of publication, you may only be eligible to recover actual damages (typically your ordinary licensing fee) and profits, if not too speculatory (i.e. no statutory damages or attorney’s fees). If you discover that one of your photos has been infringed, and you failed to timely register, your best bet is to register all of your photos as soon as possible, and to contact a copyright attorney or a photographers’ rights attorney to see if there’s something that can be done.

The bottom line is, you should get into the habit of registering your photos every three months. You can register all of your photos from the past 3 months as a single collection, and it will only cost you $35 and 10 minutes of your time. Trust me, one day it will more than pay for itself.

2. Watermark your Photos

Most photographers hate adding a watermark to their photos, as they feel it distracts from the artistic integrity of the image. However, there are several benefits to adding a subtle watermark. The obvious one being theft protection. It’s like lojack for your photos. Someone is less likely to steal your photo if they have to clone out a watermark, and hence, you’re less likely to become a victim of copyright infringement.

But another reason for adding copyright information or a watermark is to prove purposeful misappropriation when someone steals your photo and clones your watermark out. This type of purposeful misappropriation entitles you to financial recovery, even if your photos aren’t properly registered.

Under the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (“DMCA”), you are entitled to damages when someone misappropriates your photo on the internet and removes your watermark or copyright notice to hide the infringement.

-   You do not have to register your photos with the U.S. Copyright Office to take advantage of the protections that the DMCA offers.

-   If the infringer removes your copyright notice, watermark, or other “copyright management information” from your photo, you may be entitled to an award ranging from $2,500 to $25,000 for each violation. This is in addition to the statutory damages (up to $150,000) available to you if you properly registered your photo.

So the bottom line is this: If you take two important steps to protect your photos, you can recover up to $175,000 plus attorney’s fees every time you are a victim of copyright infringement. If you fail to take these steps, you can recover a couple of hundred dollars at best (and you will have to pay a lawyer several thousand dollars to even get that far).

So please register your photos to prevent copyright infringement. You’ll thank me later. Trust me.

To read more about copyright infringement, click here.

New York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman announced this week that he is appointing “public integrity officers” to Nassau and Suffolk County, most likely in response to an alarming number of government corruption and retaliation cases reported to the attorney general’s office recently. If you feel you’ve been the victim of police corruption or government corruption in Nassau County or Suffolk County, you now have a place to report it other than your local police station or DA’s office.

Focusing exclusively on rooting out abuse and fraud by public officials, it is the attorney general’s hope that these public integrity officers will give Long Island residents a place to report complaints of government corruption without fear of local political retribution. The officers will accept confidential complaints from local residents, facilitate investigations, and coordinate with the Attorney General’s centralized Public Integrity Bureau.

The Office of the Attorney General’s Nassau County Regional Office is located at:
200 Old Country Road
Suite 240
Mineola, New York 11501
(516) 248-3302
The public integrity officer assigned to Nassau County is Victoria Safran, Esq.

The Office of the Attorney General’s Suffolk County Regional Office is located at:
300 Motor Parkway
Suite 205
Hauppauge, New York 11788
(631) 231-2401
The public integrity officer assigned to Suffolk County is Kimberly Kinirons, Esq.

“Buy from Sal’s Fruit Tree…..buy from Sal’s Fruit Tree….”.. anyone on Long Island has heard the catchy TV jingles pitched by Sal Messina and his fruit store located on Sunrise Highway in Copiague. It’s the place to go for cheap produce. Unfortunately, according to a complaint filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, it’s also the place where workers are paid less than minimum wage and forced to work overtime without appropriate compensation.

Former Sal’s Fruit Tree worker Walter Zepeda has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of himself and all other current and former Sal’s Fruit Tree workers, seeking unpaid minimum wages and overtime compensation, plus interest, damages, attorney’s fees, and court costs. Zepeda and other members of the putative class were typically required to work six to seven days per week, from 6:00am until 7:00pm, receiving deliveries, cleaning and stocking produce, cleaning the store, gathering shopping carts from the parking lot, and other job functions related to Sal’s Fruit Tree operations. The employees were paid between approximately $6.50 and $10.00 per hour of work, regardless of the number of hours actually worked (i.e. not compensated one and one half times their hourly pay for overtime in accordance with Federal guidelines).

Under both federal and New York State law, minimum wage is currently $7.25 an hour. And pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 207, “no employer shall employ any of his employees who in any workweek is engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce, for a workweek longer than forty hours unless such employee receives compensation for his employment in excess of the hours above specified at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate at which he is employed.” Meaning, if you earn minimum wage ($7.25 an hour), and you work more than 40 hours a week, starting with the 41^st hour, your salary increases to $10.88 per hour for the remainder of the work week.

In addition, under New York’s “Spread of Hours” Law, 12 NYCRR § 137-1.7, requires that “[a]n employee shall receive one hour’s pay at the basic minimum hourly wage rate, in addition to the minimum wage required in this Part for any day in which … the spread of hours exceeds 10 hours [in a day].” In other words, Zepeda is claiming that he is owed an additional hour’s pay for every day that he was required to work more than 10 hours, in addition to his hourly pay.

Given the fact that Sal’s Fruit Tree employs an average of 50 people at any given time, if the claims made by Zepeda are true, the amount due could be a substantial sum. Sal’s Fruit Tree and Sal Messina filed an answer denying the allegations, and have recently changed attorneys. We’ll update this post with developments as the lawsuit progresses.

It’s a nightmare most brides dread. You hire what you think is a professional wedding photographer to capture the most memorable day in your life. But shortly after your wedding, the photographer disappears, along with your money and your photos.

New York’s Attorney General has filed lawsuits against Terry Michael Photography operated by Michael DiPaolo Jr. in Tuxedo Park, New York; JMK Photography operated by Jillian K. Karalunas and Victoria A. Vega in Lackawana, New York; and Mannix Studio d/b/a Star Wedding Photography run by Robert J. Mannix in Troy, New York for failing to deliver wedding photos to customers who have pre-paid in full. The Attorney General is seeking fines, penalties, and restitution against the photographers.

Update: The Attorney General has settled its dispute with Terry Michael Photography, accused of failing to deliver wedding albums to its clients, and failing to show up at weddings despite being paid in full ahead of time. The studio’s owner, Michael DiPaolo Jr. , has agreed to pay a $10,000 fine and to provide all outstanding wedding albums by May 1^st to the studio’s former customers.

The lawsuits against Robert Mannix, Manix Studio, and JMK Photography are still pending. The Attorney General’s investigation revealed that, in the Manix case, Mannix photographed couples’ weddings but later failed to provide them with their wedding albums. Couples generally paid in the $2,000 – $5,000 range for the wedding packages, including albums hand-crafted from Italy, that they never received. When consumers tried to contact Mannix their calls were not returned and the business is no longer in operation.

The lawsuit, filed against Mannix in Albany County Supreme Court, seeks $42,920 in restitution, $135,500 in penalties, injunctive relief prohibiting Robert Mannix from engaging in fraud, or from operating a professional photography business unless he files a $100,000 performance bond. The same bond is sought in the JMK Photography suit.

It is unclear how much time must pass before a wedding photographer is assumed to be in default of their business obligations by the Attorney General, but in one instance, JMK Photography sent a letter to customers in November 2010 stating that their customers would receive all of their pre-paid photos within ten days, and JMK Photography never delivered the photos.

“When the wedding day is over, it’s the pictures that couples use to reminisce. These photographers left newlyweds with nothing,”  said Attorney General Schneiderman. “As we approach what is typically the height of the wedding season, couples who are making plans should be armed with information that will help them recognize and avoid potential consumer fraud.”

The following are tips for consumers who are hiring wedding photographers:

• Insist that the company identify the individual who will be photographing your wedding.  It is common for photographers to book more than one wedding on a date, and send someone else to shoot the wedding.   Make the identity of the photographer part of the contract.
• It’s important to check at least three references for weddings that took place within the past three months. Up to date references can offer critical insight on a photographer’s recent job performance.
• Do not pre-pay in full.  Hold back 25 percent of the total cost until you have the products in hand.  This will create a powerful incentive for the photographer to complete the contract.  Oftentimes, a photographer who has been paid in full will shoot the wedding and take months to deliver the products.
• Make sure the contract contains certain due dates for each task.  For example, the pre-bridal photograph should be taken by a specified date, the proof should be ready by a specified date and the photograph should be ready within seven days after the consumer makes a selection.
• Ask if the photographer belongs to a wedding photographer’s association.  This could serve as an additional reference.

If you have a problem with your wedding photographer, please visit us here.

We’ve all heard about the lawsuit filed many years ago by a woman who spilled McDonalds coffee on her lap and sued, winning a $2.7 million verdict. Stella Liebeck became to some a symbol of everything wrong with the American legal system, where individuals refuse to accept responsibility for their actions and instead file frivolous lawsuits, driving insurance rates through the roof and forcing companies out of business. ….Or maybe she was truly a victim, and there was a multi-million dollar campaign to distort the facts of this case to promote tort reform?

Susan Saladoff’s 2010 documentary “Hot Coffee” takes a candid look at the American legal system by following four people whose lives have been devastated by their inability to petition the courts for redress, and how corporations spent millions of dollars to protect its interests. The cases she selected are a representation of how people are giving up their rights to the court system and they don’t even know it.

Saladoff says “People just didn’t understand that their perceptions were being manipulated and distorted by large sums of money. We have three branches of government. The executive, the legislative, and the judiciary, which are our courts. Most people know that the executive and legislative branches are bought and paid for with large amounts of money. But our court system is the one place where an average citizen should be able to get justice, regardless of how much money you have. You’re supposed to be able to go head-to-head with a large corporation and get a fair shake. But if the court system is being denied to people, the third branch of government is literally being eroded before our eyes. With this film I hope to open people’s minds to what they think they know, but don’t really know.”

How crazy can we be as a society when a woman spills coffee on herself and gets millions of dollars?

According to Saladoff, “what most people don’t realize is the reason they ask this question is because there was a huge public relations campaign to convince the public that we have an out of control court system. They will want the system reformed or changed, which gives corporations the ability to make more money.  Because if you limit people’s access to our court system, then those companies which make defective products that harm people are never held accountable for them.”

79 year old Stella Liebeck was just one example analyzed in Hot Coffee. She suffered third degree burns (the most serious kind of burn) to her groin and inner thighs while trying to add sugar to her coffee at a McDonalds drive through. She spent years undergoing expensive medical treatments to repair the damage done. And McDonalds knew it was hurting people. There were at least 700 previous cases of burning coffee incidents before Liebeck was injured, and McDonalds did not take them seriously enough to change their business practices. McDonalds settled most of those cases, but refused to settle Liebeck’s case because she requested $20,000 compensation to pay for her extensive surgeries.  At trial, lawyers discovered that McDonalds routinely served its coffee at 190 degrees, and had been previously warned by the Shriner Burn Institute not to serve coffee above 130 degrees. Doctors testified that at 190 degrees, hot liquid only takes 2-7 seconds to cause third degree burns. The jury granted a $160,000 award for compensatory damages, and found that McDonalds was guilty of “wilfull, reckless, malicious or wanton conduct”, giving a total award of $2.7 million dollars to deter future conduct. The judge then reduced the award to less than half a million dollars. Liebeck then purportedly settled with McDonalds for a sum far less than half a million dollars, which barely covered the cost of her medical bills. Yet, she was turned into a public scapegoat. As a direct result of the lawsuit, McDonalds has since made sure that its coffee is served at a safe temperature.

According to Saladoff, jurors have been brainwashed into believing that large verdicts will affect their pocketbooks.

Why would jurors feel this way?

It wasn’t until the 1950’s that lawyers began to make progress in setting judicial precedents that established corporate responsibility for injuries to workers and consumers. With corporations now being held responsible for its negligence, and consequently their insurance companies being forced to pay damages, the insurance industry responded with a massive public relations campaign against “excessive awards”, targeted at prospective jurors. By the 1980s, the insurance industry decided it was time to take on the law itself. Since they couldn’t attack the victims directly, their ad copy pointed out that “everybody pays” for overzealous lawsuits.

Teams of lobbyists were hired to push tort reform bills through state legislatures. They targeted journalists and circulated bogus “statistics” about the “costs of frivolous lawsuits.” Large corporations created fake grassroots groups like Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse, buzz of bizarre lawsuits filled the internet, and major media outlets like U.S. News and World Report picked up on the stories without fact-checking.

However, since the 1970’s, the number of lawsuits filed has drastically declined. In addition, government data show that the median jury verdict for punitive damages is now only $37,000, significantly less than the $65,000 median award in 1992. Although corporate America is complaining about how lawsuits are “hurting the economy”, the vast majority of lawsuits are now brought by corporations themselves, not individuals. Moreover, judges dismiss corporate lawsuits as frivolous 69% more often than the lawsuits brought by individuals.

What about medical malpractice? Will outlawing our right to sue grossly negligent doctors for punitive damages stop the escalating costs of healthcare?

No, it won’t. According to the Congressional Budget Office, Medical malpractice lawsuits account for one half of one percent of health care costs. Even if there were no med mal lawsuits, do you really think the insurance company would voluntarily reduce its premiums? When asked, the American Insurance Association stated “The insurance industry never promised that tort reform would achieve specific premium savings.” (March 13, 2002) and the American Tort Reform Association added, “We wouldn’t tell you or anyone that the reason to pass tort reform would be to reduce rates.”

Yet many states have passed state-mandated caps on damages regardless of fault. Hot Coffee takes a look at the case of Colin Gourley, who was born with cerebral palsy because of medical malpractice at birth. He received a $5.65 million award at trial to cover his medical expenses, but because of a Nebraska state-mandated cap on damages he will only collect $1.25 million, an amount that will not cover a lifetime of care. The film shows how the lawsuit cap has affected Colin and his family, as well as how dramatically different his life is compared to that of his identical twin brother, Connor.

Unfortunately these stories are far too common. Take the story of 2 year old Malyia Jeffers, recently profiled on the New York Personal Injury Blog. Her feet and hand were amputated after she spent 5 hours waiting in a California emergency room of an urgent care center. While she waited, she became increasingly lethargic, her fever raged, and she lost the ability to walk. Her father pushed for immediate care, but was rebuffed. After five hours, he ambushed a doctor and a nurse and demanded to see a doctor. The physician took blood samples that suggested Malyia was in liver failure. It turns out she was in septic shock from a Streptococcus A infection that somehow invaded her blood, muscles and internal organs. She required immediate care, and was ignored.

Unfortunately for Malyia, California enacted a one-size-fits-all “tort reform” with a cap of $250,000 on non-economic damages (pain and suffering). That’s right, a lifetime of missing her feet and hand, and all she gets is $250,000. Less, of course, the money to hire the experts, cost of depositions, medical records… and oh yeah, the lawyers. Sorry Malyia, there’s nothing left. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is what you get by enacting “tort reform”. A big fat gift to the insurance companies, and a huge burden to the taxpayers, as a large amount of med mal victims become poverty stricken at some point due to their inability to find gainful employment.

Taxpayers and the injured are not the only victims.

Hot Coffee also probes how when state Supreme Courts were holding caps on damages unconstitutional, Karl Rove and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce masterminded a national campaign to unseat judges who stood in the way of “tort reform.” Hot Coffee explores the story of former Mississippi Supreme Court Justice Oliver Diaz, whose life was fictionalized in John Grisham’s book, The Appeal. When big business interests couldn’t beat Justice Oliver Diaz in his re-election to the Mississippi Supreme Court, despite millions of dollars spent on advertising, they found a way to have him criminally prosecuted on false charges, tainting his reputation and causing political hardship for years to come.

This documentary unearths the sad truth that most of our beliefs about the civil-justice system have been shaped or bought by corporate America, and that the only thing tort reform will accomplish is limiting our ability to hold corporations accountable for their misdeeds.

The Southampton Town Board has named Tiffany Scarlato, 36, to fill the position of Town Attorney left vacant by Michael C. Sordi’s controversial departure. She has served more than nine years in the East Hampton town attorney’s office, where in her words, she was recently “let go” for personal and political reasons. We’ll see if she can clean up the mess left behind in the Nancy Genovese case.