Family of slain NYC bodega attacker plans to sue store in Jose Alba case

NY Post ^

[TigerClaws]

The family of the man who was killed after he attacked Manhattan bodega worker Jose Alba has lawyered-up — and notified the store that they plan to sue over the deadly incident, The Post has learned.

David Simon – whose brother Austin Simon was stabbed July 1 by Alba in self-defense — has hired an attorney as he prepares to file suit against the Blue Moon convenience store in Hamilton Heights.

We intend to make a claim for damages as a result of the injuries sustained by our client,” David’s attorney, Kathleen Beatty, wrote in an Aug. 22 letter to the store, obtained by The Post on Tuesday.

Austin, 35, was killed “due to negligence in the ownership, security, hiring of employees, retention of employees, training of employees, and management of your premises,” the letter claims.

Beatty notified the bodega to “preserve” evidence including surveillance videos, witness information and incident reports. She also asked for information about the store’s insurance coverage.

But Francisco Marte, the head of a bodega association that has been helping Alba, claims Blue Moon Convenience wasn’t insured at the time of the incident — so there isn’t money to go after.

“The family is just pushing to see if they can get money from the store owner,” Marte told The Post. “This is a shakedown.”

[The Great RJ]

Show the video and this case should be kicked out of court, except in NewYork

[Dawgreg]

He didndu nuffin!

Always hustlin’ for a dollar.....

[popdonnelly]

The family should bugger off. What a cheap, despicable way to try and make money. Alba acted in self-defense, period. They’ll need a jury of idiots to win, but then again it’s New York City.

[willk]

“Losing a lawsuit and filing a frivolous lawsuit are two different things. We don’t have loser pays. The theory is that would have a chilling effect on the ability or willingness of people to assert their rights in court. Most US jurisdictions do provide penalties for the filing of frivolous suits, though. Truly frivolous suits are typically resolved fairly quickly through dismissals or summary judgments.”

Problem is that frivolous lawsuits are still happening way too much. Trial Lawyers need to be reigned in. All their political contributions go to the Democrat party.

[frank ballenger]

Criminals claim their rights as the famous type of case in which the school system or the homeowner is supposedly responsible for the safety of the criminals.
One:

....March 1, 1982, to steal a floodlight from the roof of the Enterprise High School gymnasium. Ricky climbed the roof, removed the floodlight, lowered it to the ground to his friends, and, as he was walking across the roof (perhaps to steal a second floodlight), he fell through the skylight. Bodine suffered terrible injuries to be sure, though one questions the relevance: if the school is legally responsible for burglars’ safety, it doesn’t matter whether Bodine stubbed a toe or, as actually happened, became a spastic quadriplegic. But I fail to see what it is that reformers are supposedly misrepresenting. A burglar fell through a skylight, and sued the owner of the skylight for his injuries. Bodine sued for $8 million (in 1984 dollars, about $16 million today)////article was in 2006 so estimates of dollars are obsolete.
from overlawyered.com

[frank ballenger]

Not NY but interesting:

https://www.justicepays.com/news/sometimes-a-trespasser-can-sue-a-homeowner

//////////////
It is true that every property owner has the right to prevent trespassers from coming into the property. In the case of homeowners with swimming pools, or treehouses, or other features attractive to children, it is even legally required to take steps to prevent children from easily trespassing.
However, there is no legal justification for booby traps, especially if those traps have been laid with the express purpose of harming, or even killing trespassers. So while putting up a fence to keep a child from sneaking into a swimming pool is legally approved—and even required—setting up a shotgun to shoot that same child once the child is on the property could result in a personal injury or even wrongful death lawsuit from the parents.

Using Deadly Force To Defend Property

Similar to the use of booby traps is the general legal sentiment that it is illegal for home or property owners to use deadly force to defend that property. Please note, this is an important distinction. The clear dividing line here is PROPERTY, not PERSON. Florida is a “stand your ground” state, so while the law recognizes the right of an individual to defend him or herself when threatened with violence, that does not apply to the property. So if a teenager is “threatening” your property with graffiti from a spray can, this is not the same as a stand your ground scenario, and you cannot open fire on the teenager.