General Info

Sanford F. Young and his firm have handled over 400 appeals in various appellate courts, including the United States Supreme Court, New York Court of Appeals (New York's highest court), United States Circuit Court of Appeals, the various New York State Appellate Divisions, New York City Appellate Terms, New Jersey Appellate Division, and various other appellate tribunals, such as the New York City Board of Standards and Appeals New York Division of Housing Community Renewal [ DHCR ]. Sanford F. Young and his firm have handled numerous appellate motions, with a concentration on substantive motions, including seeking permission/leave to appeal to higher courts such as the New York Court of Appeals, and stays pending appeal. Mr. Young authored an authoritative cover article on how to obtain permission/leave to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals for the New York State Bar Journal. The firm is proud of its recognition and successes, which are illustrated by many reported cases. Among those are: Plaintiff commenced a medical malpractice action against a neurosurgeon and hospital following surgery to control seizures. The trial court granted the hospital's motion for summary judgment based on its claim that it was not responsible for the surgeon's errors. On appeal, Sanford F. Young, P.C. persuaded the Appellate Division to reverse and reinstate the action against the hospital. Hawkins v. Brooklyn-Caledonia Hospital, 239 App.Div. 2d 549, 658 N.Y.S.2d 375 (2nd Dept.) [ medical malpractice; foreign object; application of res ipsa loquitur ] Plaintiff commenced a medical malpractice action for injuries sustained when the tip of a subclavian catheter broke off as defendant's resident was attempting to insert the catheter in plaintiff's neck. Sanford F. Young, P.C. was retained to defend defendant's appeal from the verdict in favor of plaintiff. Affirming, the Appellate Division held that the evidence established that the catheter tip would not have sheared off without negligence, that the catheter was in defendant's resident's control, and that plaintiff, who was allegedly noncompliant, did not contribute to the event. Accordingly, the Appellate Division held that the charge on res ipsa loquitur was proper, and that the evidence established that defendant departed from good and accepted medical procedure.