How do we Help?

For years, our firms have been dedicated to investigating, litigating, and fighting for accident victims. Our legal team evaluates your potential claims to determine if we can represent you. Once retained we will do everything in our power to seek justice for you.

How are we different?

We are the first and only lawyers to win a trial against the MTA Transit Authority based upon a theory that the MTA Transit Authority has failed to take proper and reasonable safety measures to make subway platforms safe by failing to install platform edge barriers or screen doors. . It is our belief that the MTA has known about preventable hazards constituting negligence for all victims who are injured by subway train cars. Victims, lawyers, and the public come to us for help - Litigating Train Strike Cases Against the NYCTA

Have we been featured in the News?

Yes, our cases and verdicts have been featured by the NYPost, Spectrum News NY1, Gothamist, Law.com, and more.

How much does it cost?

We do not charge our clients unless we win and recover a settlement or verdict. Our fees are based on a contingency basis after successful recovery.

Are you available to Speak Now?

Yes, please Contact Us now.

Have you handled Subway, Transit, and Municipal liability cases in the past?

Yes, for decades we have successfully represented injured victims as a result of subway, transit, and municipal liability cases. We are equipped to handle all injury cases and have a long history of representing victims in regard to subway incidents:

• Harger Da Silva v. New York City Transit Authority

  Jury Verdict- Federal jury verdict of approximately $81.7 million for a passenger who fainted on the Atlantic Avenue–Barclays Center platform, fell to the tracks, and suffered catastrophic limb loss. The verdict was the first in the United States holding a transit authority liable for failing to install platform edge barriers or screen doors.

  No. 1:17-cv-04550 (E.D.N.Y. 2025)
  Counsel: David Roth and Elliot Shields, Roth & Roth, LLP; Robert Genis, Sonin & Genis, LLC

  Trial Court Order - No. 17-CV-4550, 2025 WL 722967 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 6, 2025)

  Senior District Judge Frederic Block denied the Transit Authority's motion for summary judgment on three of four counts, holding that the TA acted in a proprietary rather than governmental capacity — defeating government function immunity as a matter of law — and that genuine disputes of material fact precluded summary judgment on qualified immunity and on the negligence claims relating to train operation, platform barriers, and track intrusion devices.

  Trial Court Order - No. 17-CV-4550, ECF No. 265 (E.D.N.Y. May 29, 2025)

  Judge Block certified the defendants' interlocutory appeal as frivolous, holding that New York state law immunity defenses confer only immunity from liability — not immunity from suit — and therefore fall outside the collateral order doctrine. The court retained jurisdiction and ordered the case to proceed to trial.

• Ortega v. New York City Transit Authority

  Appellate Decision - 2019 NY Slip Op 01782 (2d Dept 2019)

  Second Department affirmed leave to amend the complaint to add a negligent-design theory based on the Transit Authority's failure to install platform edge barriers or screen doors, holding that the timely notice of claim gave the Transit Authority notice of the design theory and that the relation-back doctrine applied.

  Appellate Decision - 2025 NY Slip Op 02596 (2d Dept 2025)

  Second Department affirmed an order compelling the Transit Authority to produce outstanding discovery related to its qualified immunity defense, issued upon reargument.

  Trial Court Order - Index No. 502824/2016 (Sup. Ct., Kings County Feb. 6, 2023)

  Justice Lawrence Knipel, on reargument, directed defendants to answer each subsection of item 7(a-g) of plaintiff's bill of particulars regarding their qualified immunity affirmative defense — rather than responding with a single consolidated paragraph — and to produce documents responsive to plaintiff's discovery demands for the years 2014, 2015, and 2016. The order was subsequently affirmed by the Second Department in 2025.

• Lau v. New York City Transit Authority

  Appellate Decision - 201 AD3d 470 (1st Dept 2022)

  First Department held that discovery of prior similar subway door-closing incidents could not be confined to the specific door and platform at issue; information about prior incidents anywhere in the system was material to the question of the Transit Authority's notice of a dangerous condition.

• Pollack v. New York City Transit Authority

  Trial Court Order - 2023 NY Slip Op 31905(U) (Sup Ct, NY County 2023) Supreme Court, New York County
  Supreme Court compelled system-wide gap-accident discovery under penalty of preclusion and separately precluded the Transit Authority from asserting a qualified immunity defense it had never pleaded in nearly seven years of litigation.

  Appellate Decision - 2024 NY Slip Op 06312 (1st Dept 2024)
  First Department decided companion platform-gap appeals addressing the scope of system-wide gap-accident discovery.

• Chacon v. New York City Transit Authority

  Trial Court Order - Index No. 709100/2016 (Sup. Ct., Queens County Jan. 23, 2023)

  Justice Joseph Risi granted reargument and amended a prior discovery ruling, directing the Transit Authority to produce all photographs and videos of the gap at the 82nd Street Station's 7 line for the three years preceding plaintiff's September 2015 fall, and — critically — all gap-related studies, reports, accidents, and injuries system-wide across the entire New York City Subway System for the same period. The court further ordered that if any such records no longer exist, the Transit Authority must provide an affidavit from a person with personal knowledge explaining whether the documents ever existed, how they were disposed of or deleted, and why they no longer exist. The Second Department affirmed in 2024.

  Appellate Decision - 231 AD3d 1008 (2d Dept 2024)

• Dale v. New York City Transit Authority

  Index No. 27937/2019E (Sup. Ct., Bronx County Apr. 8, 2024)

  Justice Mitchell J. Danziger so-ordered a stipulation compelling the Transit Authority to respond within thirty days to specific numbered demands — including requests for prior similar incident records, maintenance and inspection logs, and gap-related data — from plaintiff's demand set dated May 25, 2021, to provide a Bill of Particulars of its Affirmative Defenses, and to produce its witness for an examination before trial no later than June 26, 2024. The Transit Authority's agreement to the stipulated terms, before the same judge who handled Scalice and against the backdrop of prior discovery orders across multiple platform-gap cases, reflected the accumulated weight of precedent Roth & Roth, LLP had built in this practice area.

• Scalice v. New York City Transit Authority

  Index No. 803400/2021E (Sup. Ct., Bronx County Feb. 2, 2023)
  Justice Mitchell J. Danziger granted plaintiff's motion to compel in part, directing the Transit Authority to produce records of prior similar gap incidents for three years preceding plaintiff's December 2019 fall at the Parkchester East 177th Street Station in the Bronx, to produce maintenance and inspection records for the platform and northbound 6 train line, to identify eyewitnesses, and to provide specific — rather than boilerplate — objections to outstanding discovery demands.