Call Us Today

Our Blog

Border crossing requirements increased today

June 1, 2009

As in the Buffalo News “The days of going back and forth to Canada over the Peace Bridge with just a verbal declaration of U. S. citizenship officially ends. Instead, travelers returning home from Canada will be required to present a U.S. passport, passport card, enhanced driver’s license or Trusted Traveler Program card such as NEXUS” Goe are the days of “Anything to declare? “No.” ” Have a good day.”

Request Your Free Consultation

Get the answers and support you need. Our friendly and experienced Buffalo personal injury lawyers will take the time to understand your case, explain your options, and guide you every step of the way.

Five gold stars representing a 5-star client rating for a Buffalo, NY law firm
“I think John is the tops! He always treated me like a mother. He took a while to get everything in order and he got it all done. He handled an impossible case, just let me put it that way.”
— Irene

Our Practice Areas

Read More Articles

Ohio Court Finds Employment Agreement Unenforceable That Requires Attorney to Return 95% of Fees

Should Cars be Allowed to Talk?

July 30, 2013

Should vehicles be allowed to communicate? The National Transportation Safety Board recommends cars and trucks talk to each other to prevent car crashes, truck accidents and bus accidents..

Read Blog
Ohio Court Finds Employment Agreement Unenforceable That Requires Attorney to Return 95% of Fees

Amusement Park Must Keep Patrons Safe

July 20, 2013

As an attorney who has handled many amusement park injury cases against parks like Six Flags and others, I am concerned when employees continue to fail to keep their patrons safe. An employee of the park knows the ride better than the customers and it is that persons

Read Blog
Ohio Court Finds Employment Agreement Unenforceable That Requires Attorney to Return 95% of Fees

Fall Was The Result Of Elevated Related Risk

July 5, 2013

In, NICOMETI v. THE VINEYARDS OF FREDONIA, LLC (June 2013) the Fourth Department held that contrary to the contention of defendants, the Supreme Court properly concluded that plaintiff’s fall was the result of an elevation-related risk for which Labor Law § 240 (1) provides protection.

Read Blog