The attorneys of Flink Maswick Law PLLC were pleased to host Jill Reynolds, a rising third-year law student at Vermont Law School, this past week. Jill had the opportunity to attend both criminal and civil-based proceedings in a variety of courts, conduct legal research to support Flink Maswick attorneys in some litigated matters, attend client meetings, and sit in and participate on strategy phone calls with clients as well. Jill spent the majority of time with both attorneys Molly S. Hann and James L. Maswick this past week and also met with attorney Edward B. Flink. We greatly enjoyed having Jill and wish them an excellent upcoming third year at Vermont Law! Flink Maswick Law participated in the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department's Rural Pathways Program, which is designed to place law students in rural counties during the summer break from school. The program allows students to observe rural law practice, as well as gain hands-on experience in different areas of law in rural settings. One of the goals of the program is to educate law students about opportunities for law students in legal practice in less populated areas.

James L. Maswick, an attorney with Flink Maswick Law PLLC, recently was victorious in a New York State Department of Motor Vehicles Refusal Hearing on behalf of a client. Refusal Hearings typically occur when a motorist is arrested and alleged to have been operating their motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol or drugs, and allegedly refuses to provide a chemical test to the police upon proper request. This chemical test can take the form of a breath test, urine test, blood test, and/or a saliva test. In this situation, the client was alleged to have been operating a motor vehicle in an intoxicated condition and allegedly failed to provide a chemical test upon request of the arresting officers. However, Maswick and the client were successful, after three separate refusal hearing sessions, in eliciting testimony on cross-examination from one of the arresting officers, which indicated that the allegations made in the notifications filed with the Department of Motor Vehicles were inaccurate and impossible in light of the arresting officer's own testimony. Upon the start of the third DMV Refusal Hearing session on this matter, the Administrative Law Judge dismissed the case on the motion Mr. Maswick and his client made seeking dismissal of the matter, granting their motion.  If you find yourself in a similar situation, please do not hesitate to contact our firm at (518) 523-2441.

Flink Maswick Law PLLC is pleased to announce that it was voted runner up by the readers of the Adirondack Daily Enterprise and Lake Placid News in their annual “Best of the Adirondacks” competition for 2026 in the Best Law Firm category. Additionally, Flink Maswick Law PLLC attorney Molly S. Hann, Esq. was voted second place in the Best Attorney/Lawyer competition, after winning the previous 2 years. James L. Maswick, Esq. of Flink Maswick Law PLLC was voted third place in the same category this year. Fellow bar member, colleague and attorney Robert White, Esq. of Saranac Lake and his law firm won Best Attorney/Lawyer and the Best Law Firm categories. Congrats to our friend Bob for his fine work and wins! We wish to thank the readers of the Adirondack Daily Enterprise and Lake Placid News for their continued support and trust. We also congratulate the other award winners and nominees in the annual contest.

From all of us at Flink Maswick Law, we wish you and your family a safe, happy, and memorable Fourth of July weekend! As we celebrate the freedoms we enjoy and honor those who have served our country, we hope you have the opportunity to relax, spend time with loved ones, and enjoy all that makes this holiday special. Our offices are closed today, Friday, July 3, 2026, in observance of the Independence Day holiday. We will reopen on Monday, July 6, 2026, at 8:30 a.m. Thank you for your continued trust and support. We wish everyone a safe and wonderful holiday! Happy Fourth of July!

This Father’s Day, all of us at Flink Maswick Law honor the fathers, grandfathers, stepfathers, and father figures who help shape our families and communities throughout the Adirondacks and Upstate New York. Today we celebrate the men who lead by example, offer steady support, share their wisdom, and create lasting memories with those they love. Fathers play an invaluable role in the lives of their families. Whether you’re spending the day fishing, hiking, grilling with family, enjoying time on the lake, or simply relaxing with loved ones, we hope your Father’s Day is filled with laughter, happiness, and special moments.  From all of us in our Lake Placid, Tupper Lake, and Albany offices — Happy Father’s Day!

Flink Maswick Law PLLC's offices will be closed on Friday, June 19, 2026 in recognition of Juneteenth, a federal holiday. Our offices will reopen on Monday, June 22, 2026 at 8.30 AM. Thank you.

On May 27, 2026, New York State Governor Kathy Hochul signed into law significant amendments which impact the ability of parties injured in automobile accidents to recover money damages. Three major changes have gone into effect, including the elimination of an injury category to qualify for non-economic damages, a cap to a plaintiff’s recovery who is convicted of certain crimes out of the accident, and changes to a plaintiff’s right to recovery where plaintiff holds the majority at fault. These changes are being explained in a series of three blog posts. This third post will review the newly installed bar on recovery if the plaintiff is the party with a majority of the fault. Modified Comparative Negligence for Automobile Cases New York has historically followed a pure comparative negligence system, under which a plaintiff’s recovery is reduced by his or her percentage of fault but previously, the plaintiff was never completely barred from recovery if any percentage of the fault for the accident was placed on the defendant. One of the best ways to explain what the above means is an example. Let’s say Joe is speeding, going 50 miles per hour in a 30 mile per hour zone. Joe is also talking on a cell phone while driving, actually videochatting with his friend. Joe comes to an intersection that has a traffic light at it and Joe has the green light. As Joe goes through the intersection, Harold is driving on a cross street and runs through a red light. Joe’s car and Harold’s car collide, and Joe breaks his arm in the accident. Joe brings a lawsuit against Harold. The jury finds that Joe was 60% at fault for the accident – going double the posted speed and, come on Joe, videochatting while driving(!), but finds Harold 40% at fault because he ran a red light. The jury finds Joe was damaged in an amount of $100,000. In this scenario, since Joe was awarded $100,000 in damages but Harold was found only 40% at fault, Joe would have received $40,000 from Harold’s insurance company. However, now, Joe would not recover anything from Harold, because Joe was more at fault than Harold. The new legislation creates an exception for automobile personal injury actions governed by the No-Fault Law. Rather than adopting a straightforward 50-percent bar, the statute CPLR 1411(b) provides: “In any action to recover damages for personal injury subject to the No-Fault Law, the culpable conduct attributable to the claimant shall bar recovery if the culpable conduct attributable to the claimant is greater than the culpable conduct of the person against whom recovery is sought or is greater than the combined culpable conduct of the persons against whom recovery is sought.” CPLR 1411(b). The above new statute is not applicable to any other areas of law other than motor vehicle accidents. Pure comparative fault continues to exist in other areas of personal injury law. The practical implications of this language remain uncertain, particularly in multi-vehicle collisions. Questions arise where a plaintiff’s fault exceeds that of one tortfeasor but is less than that of another. In such circumstances, issues concerning which defendants remain liable and how any unrecoverable share of fault is allocated will likely require judicial interpretation. Continued Development from Change in Law  These changes to NY automobile liability law raises many questions for plaintiff attorneys, which will be answered through future litigation and court decisions. If you or a loved one has been injured in a motor vehicle accident, it is important you contact an experienced law firm, like Flink Maswick Law PLLC, who can help you understand your rights to recovery.

On May 27, 2026, New York State Governor Kathy Hochul signed into law significant amendments which impact the ability of parties injured in automobile accidents to recover money damages. Three major changes have gone into effect, including the elimination of an injury category to qualify for non-economic damages, a cap to a plaintiff’s recovery who is convicted of certain crimes out of the accident, and changes to a plaintiff’s right to recovery where plaintiff holds the majority at fault. These changes are being explained in a series of three blog posts. This second post reviews the newly placed cap on non-economic recovery for a plaintiff convicted of certain offenses. $100,000.00 Cap on Non-Economic Damages for Certain At-Fault Plaintiffs The law imposes a limited $100,000.00 maximum ability to recover on pain-and-suffering damages for certain plaintiffs whose conduct contributed to the accident. The cap applies when a plaintiff: Was operating an uninsured vehicle that he or she was responsible for insuring, unless the lapse in coverage lasted fewer than 30 days; Was operating a vehicle while impaired and is subsequently convicted of the impairment-related offense; or Was operating a vehicle during the commission of a felony, or while fleeing immediately from the commission of a felony, and is subsequently convicted of that felony.  The cap applies only to claims for non-economic damages and does not affect wrongful death actions. It is important that your attorney either has experience in criminal law or works closely with your criminal attorney if you are injured in a motor vehicle accident and charged with a DWI or a felony arising from the same accident. There may be limited circumstances in which this issue arises, but if you are injured in a motor vehicle accident, it is important you contact an experienced law firm to educate you on your rights to recovery. Part 3 to come in this series.

On May 27, 2026, New York State Governor Kathy Hochul signed into law significant amendments which impact the ability of parties injured in automobile accidents to recover money damages. Three major changes have gone into effect, including the elimination of an injury category to qualify for non-economic damages, a cap to a plaintiff’s recovery who is convicted of certain crimes out of the accident, and changes to a plaintiff’s right to recovery where plaintiff holds the majority at fault. These changes will be explained in a series of three blog posts. This first post covers perhaps most dramatic change to New York motor vehicle accident personal injury litigation, the elimination of the 90/180-Day serious injury category. Elimination of the 90/180-Day Serious Injury Category For the vast majority of personal injury cases involving motor vehicle crashes, plaintiffs seek to recover damages associated with pain and suffering for the injuries they have suffered. Simply receiving economic damages, such as lost wages, is helpful but does not fully compensate an injured plaintiff for what they have been through as a result of the negligence of another driver. In most situations, to bring a lawsuit that seeks pain and suffering damages, a plaintiff must have suffered what is known as a serious injury under the New York State Insurance Law. A serious injury is statutorily defined as: Death; Dismemberment; Significant disfigurement; Fracture; Loss of Fetus; Permanent Loss of use of a body organ, member, function or system; or Permanent consequential limitation of use of body organ or member; or Significant limitation of use of a body function or system. Previously, there was a ninth category; a plaintiff could recover damages from the defendant driver and satisfy the “serious injury threshold” by demonstrating a medically determined, non-permanent injury or impairment that prevented the performance of substantially all of plaintiff’s customary daily activities for at least 90 of the 180 days immediately following the accident. However, the new legislation removes the 90/180-day category from the definition of “serious injury” under New York Insurance Law § 5102(d). This is a significant change that will cause many who are significantly injured to not have a right to bring a lawsuit and seek pain and suffering damages. The category commonly known as “90/180” was a sort of catchall that permitted folks who were significantly injured in a car accident, but who did not break a bone in a car accident, to have the right to bring a lawsuit seeking full damages and compensation for their injuries. Now, these people may not be able to bring a suit like they could have previously. Think of those with significant and serious soft tissue injuries, torn ligaments, concussive issues or rotator cuff injuries. If you have a potential personal injury case, the attorneys at Flink Maswick Law PLLC are pleased to evaluate your matter free of charge. Please do not hesitate to contact us. Parts 2 and 3 to come.