Exhibit,Appendix: Taj Patterson v. Williamsburg Safety Patrol, Inc. A/K/A Shomrim, Shomrim, Abraham Winkler, Aharon Hollender, Mayer Herskovic, Joseph Fried, Pinchas Braver
On June 14, 2016 a
Exhibit,Appendix
was filed
involving a dispute between
Taj Patterson,
and
Abraham Winkler,
Aharon Hollender,
Joseph Fried,
Mayer Herskovic,
Pinchas Braver,
Williamsburg Safety Patrol, Inc. A K A Shomrim, Shomrim,
for Torts - Other (Assault & Battery)
in the District Court of Kings County.
Preview
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 10/02/2022 08:49 PM INDEX NO. 9093/2014
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 32 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/02/2022
Page 1
1 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
2 COUNTY OF KINGS: CIVIL TERM : PART 92
3 --------------------------------------------------X
TAJ PATTERSON, :
4 Plaintiff (s) :
- against - :IND.# 9093/2014
5 :DECISION ONLY
WILLIAMSBURG SAFETY PATROL, INC. A/K/A :
6 SHOMRIM, SHOMRIM, ABRAHAM WINKLER, :
AHARON HOLLENDER, MAYER HERSKOVIC, :
7 JOSEPH FRIED AND PINCHAS BRAVER, :
Defendant (s) :
8 ---------------------------------------------------X
9 VIRUTAL TEAMS MEETING
Brooklyn, New York, 11201
10 SEPTEMBER 19, 2022
11 B E F O R E : MIRIAM SUNSHINE,
SPECIAL REFEREE,
12
13 A P P E A R A N C E S:
14 FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
15
STOLL, GLICKMAN & BELLINA, LLP
16 300 Cadman Plaza W., 12th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
17 By: ANDREW B. STOLL, ESQ.
18
19
20
Nadonna Ferguson, RPR
21 Senior Court Reporter
22
23
24
25
NVF
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 10/02/2022 08:49 PM INDEX NO. 9093/2014
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 32 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/02/2022
- DECISION - Page 2
1 THE COURT: This is the case of Taj Patterson
2 against Williamsburg Safety Patrol, et al, index number
3 9093 of 2014. This matter was heard on August 10, 2022 and
4 adjourned until today.
5 Counsel, can you please state your name and address
6 for the record on who you represent.
7 MR. STOLL: Good afternoon. My name is Andrew
8 Stoll, S-T-O-L-L, 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor.
9 Brooklyn, 11201. I represent the Plaintiff, Taj Patterson.
10 (Whereupon, only the decretal portion of the
11 transcript was transcribed)
12 THE COURT: After a hearing held before me and
13 based upon the credible evidence adduced at trial, the
14 Court makes the following findings:
15 Okay. As to the economics, the Court finds that some
16 of the scenarios that the economic expert testified to, she
17 had scenario, A, B and C, I find that some were speculative
18 and you are never sure if it is going to come to fruition.
19 And as to injuries, I just want to read to you from a
20 report from the Vitreous Retina Macula's diagnosis. And I
21 quote it by saying "it's unlikely to be able to read or
22 have good vision ever again, but it would be better to
23 observe than take a risk of the surgery at this time as
24 surgery would not improve the vision and may lead to
25 blindness". And furthermore, they stated that it's a solid
NVF
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 10/02/2022 08:49 PM INDEX NO. 9093/2014
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 32 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/02/2022
- DECISION - Page 3
1 clot so it cannot be removed currently, but once it
2 liquefies perhaps they can.
3 The Court is combining, rather than state that some of
4 the economic factors are speculative or whatever, I am
5 going to put it as an award against in favor of Taj
6 Patterson against all of the defendants in the sum of
7 $4,500,000 of which 3 million is for past pain and
8 suffering and 1.5 million is for future.
9 Enter a judgment forthwith. Which means that you take
10 the decretal page from the court reporter and then you
11 prepare a judgment and you enter it together to the
12 Judgment Clerk, okay.
13 MR. STOLL: Okay. All right. Thank you, very
14 much.
15 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.
16 * * * * *
17
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED THAT THE FOREGOING IS
18
A TRUE AND ACCURATE RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS.
19
20
21
22 - - - - - - - - - - -
NADONNA V. FERGUSON
23 Senior Court Reporter
24
25
NVF
Preview
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 10/02/2022 08:49 PM INDEX NO. 9093/2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 32 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/02/2022 Page 1 1 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 2 COUNTY OF KINGS: CIVIL TERM : PART 92 3 --------------------------------------------------X TAJ PATTERSON, : 4 Plaintiff (s) : - against - :IND.# 9093/2014 5 :DECISION ONLY WILLIAMSBURG SAFETY PATROL, INC. A/K/A : 6 SHOMRIM, SHOMRIM, ABRAHAM WINKLER, : AHARON HOLLENDER, MAYER HERSKOVIC, : 7 JOSEPH FRIED AND PINCHAS BRAVER, : Defendant (s) : 8 ---------------------------------------------------X 9 VIRUTAL TEAMS MEETING Brooklyn, New York, 11201 10 SEPTEMBER 19, 2022 11 B E F O R E : MIRIAM SUNSHINE, SPECIAL REFEREE, 12 13 A P P E A R A N C E S: 14 FOR THE PLAINTIFF: 15 STOLL, GLICKMAN & BELLINA, LLP 16 300 Cadman Plaza W., 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 17 By: ANDREW B. STOLL, ESQ. 18 19 20 Nadonna Ferguson, RPR 21 Senior Court Reporter 22 23 24 25 NVF FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 10/02/2022 08:49 PM INDEX NO. 9093/2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 32 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/02/2022 - DECISION - Page 2 1 THE COURT: This is the case of Taj Patterson 2 against Williamsburg Safety Patrol, et al, index number 3 9093 of 2014. This matter was heard on August 10, 2022 and 4 adjourned until today. 5 Counsel, can you please state your name and address 6 for the record on who you represent. 7 MR. STOLL: Good afternoon. My name is Andrew 8 Stoll, S-T-O-L-L, 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor. 9 Brooklyn, 11201. I represent the Plaintiff, Taj Patterson. 10 (Whereupon, only the decretal portion of the 11 transcript was transcribed) 12 THE COURT: After a hearing held before me and 13 based upon the credible evidence adduced at trial, the 14 Court makes the following findings: 15 Okay. As to the economics, the Court finds that some 16 of the scenarios that the economic expert testified to, she 17 had scenario, A, B and C, I find that some were speculative 18 and you are never sure if it is going to come to fruition. 19 And as to injuries, I just want to read to you from a 20 report from the Vitreous Retina Macula's diagnosis. And I 21 quote it by saying "it's unlikely to be able to read or 22 have good vision ever again, but it would be better to 23 observe than take a risk of the surgery at this time as 24 surgery would not improve the vision and may lead to 25 blindness". And furthermore, they stated that it's a solid NVF FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 10/02/2022 08:49 PM INDEX NO. 9093/2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 32 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/02/2022 - DECISION - Page 3 1 clot so it cannot be removed currently, but once it 2 liquefies perhaps they can. 3 The Court is combining, rather than state that some of 4 the economic factors are speculative or whatever, I am 5 going to put it as an award against in favor of Taj 6 Patterson against all of the defendants in the sum of 7 $4,500,000 of which 3 million is for past pain and 8 suffering and 1.5 million is for future. 9 Enter a judgment forthwith. Which means that you take 10 the decretal page from the court reporter and then you 11 prepare a judgment and you enter it together to the 12 Judgment Clerk, okay. 13 MR. STOLL: Okay. All right. Thank you, very 14 much. 15 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. 16 * * * * * 17 IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED THAT THE FOREGOING IS 18 A TRUE AND ACCURATE RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS. 19 20 21 22 - - - - - - - - - - - NADONNA V. FERGUSON 23 Senior Court Reporter 24 25 NVF