The New York Personal Injury Law Blog is sponsored by its creator, Eric Turkewitz of The Turkewitz Law Firm. The blog might be considered a form of attorney advertising in accordance with New York’s Rules of Professional Conduct (though we don’t think so).
Throughout the blog as it develops, you may see examples of cases we have handled, or cases from others, that are used for illustrative purposes. Since all cases are different, and legal authority may change from year to year, it is important to remember that prior results in any particular case do not guarantee or predict similar outcomes with respect to any future matter, including yours, in which any lawyer or law firm may be retained.
Some of the commentary may be become outdated. Some might be a minority opinion, or simply wrong. No reader should consider this site (or any other) to be authoritative, and if a legal issue is presented, the reader should contact an attorney of his or her own choosing for advice.
Finally, we are not responsible for the comments of others that may be added to this site.
About the New York Personal Injury Law Blog
An attorney's blog on New York personal injury law, medical malpractice, the civil justice system and cases of interest.
© 2006-2018 New York Personal Injury Law Blog
Managed by Skylark WebWorks and Skylark NetWorks, 70 E Sunrise Hwy, Suite 500, Valley Stream NY 11581
Pingback: Defending People » Compendium of Rakofsky (and Borzouye) v. Internet Blog Posts
Doesn’t plaintiff’s attorney have an obligation to bring a non-frivolous case? And to so certify by signing his pleading? Here, plaintiff’s attorney was admitted to practice law in 2004. Might he be in this way over his head?
Pingback: Rakofsky Case: Reuters Moves To Dismiss – New York Personal Injury Law Blog
Pingback: Rakofsky Motion #7 – Doudna Moves to Dismiss and for Sanctions – New York Personal Injury Law Blog
@Gary E. Rosenberg
The complaint smells of Rakowsky’s authorship and Bourzye merely signing it as attorney. That puts Bourzye on the hook for sanctions for its submission, maybe more so than Rakowsky.
The Complaint was not even verified; but who would want to risk a perjury charge for swearing to things that are contradicted by the transcript? These attorneys (and I use the term loosely) are in for a BIG shock when the sanctions start rolling in. I bet they don’t pay the sanctions and end up in even more trouble.