2
BROOKLYN WEEKLY, MARCH 3, 2019
When you buy a product, the
expectation is that it should
perform in the way it was intended
to but that is not always
the case. When damage or injury
is caused as the result of
the use of a defective product,
the law in New York recognizes
that those who manufacture
and/or distribute the defective
product, as well as those who
sell it, may be held responsible
for damages for the injuries
which result.
Consider the case of the
young teenager who while using
a hair dryer in her home,
sustained severe third degree
burns to her hands when the
product burst into flames.
Her parents had the foresight
to consult our office shortly
thereafter. Upon consulting
an expert who inspected the
hair dryer, he advised that the
product’s wiring and/or loose
electrical connections allowed
it to overheat and catch on fire.
We sued the manufacturer, as
well as the neighborhood store
where the hair dryer had been
purchased, claiming that this
product was defective as it was
improperly or poorly designed,
that there was a mistake in
its manufacture or assembly,
and/or the manufacturer or
distributor placed the product
into the marketplace without
adequate warnings. Based
upon our expert’s opinion, we
were successful in achieving a
favorable outcome for our client.
If you find yourself in a similar
situation, the first thing
to do is secure and safeguard
the defective product. In situations
where the injury occurs
outside your home, for
example, in the workplace, it
is particularly important to
be vigilant and contact an attorney
promptly. A separate
court proceeding may need to
be commenced, as soon as possible,
to compel preservation
of the product and to direct the
person, or entity, in possession
or control of the product,
to grant access so it can be inspected
and tested before it is
destroyed, altered or disposed
of.
If you believe that you or a
loved one have been injured by
any defective product, whether
a piece of heavy machinery or
a seemingly harmless household
item, you should consult
an attorney. A timely phone
call could be very important to
protect your rights.
TWO TOWERS: Continuum Company bigwigs want city permission to build two 39-story, mixed-use
towers a stone’s throw from the Brooklyn Botanic Garden. Continuum Company
It’s a no grow
Botanic Garden bigwigs double down on opposition
to proposed megadevelopment on Franklin Avenue
BY COLIN MIXSON
These green thumbs are
seeing red!
Brooklyn Botanic Garden
bigwigs are doubling
down on their opposition to
a proposed Franklin Avenue
megadevelopment near
the horticultural museum,
and will send a rep to pan
the plan at the fi rst meeting
of the public-review process
its builder must endure to
get a rezoning necessary to
construct the complex.
“Representatives for
BBG will be at the scoping
hearing ... speaking out
against the proposed rezoning,”
said garden spokeswoman
Elizabeth Reina-
Longoria. “We strongly
oppose any changes to the
existing zoning.”
Botanic Garden leaders
last year blasted plans
for Continuum Company’s
development — which
then called for erecting six
buildings as high as 37 stories
with some 1,450 market
rate and affordable units
between them on the site of
an old factory at 960 Franklin
Ave. — citing concerns
about shadows it could cast
over the green space.
“Its towers could have
signifi cant shadow impact
on the garden’s conservatory,
nursery, and other
collections,” Reina-Longoria
told this newspaper
last June, months after the
local Community Board 9
expressed its own reservations
about the scheme.
Garden stewards’ concerns
about the complex
only escalated when a local
anti-gentrifi cation group
released a study performed
by two private architectural
fi rms , which found
the tallest structures of
Continuum’s six-building
complex would cast shadows
that could darken parts
of the Botanic Garden — including
its Children’s, Water,
and Herb gardens, and
greenhouses at the Steinhardt
Conservatory — for
more than four hours a day
during certain times of the
year.
The developer has since
refashioned the complex,
however, reducing it to two
mixed-use buildings, but
upping their height to 39
stories each — on a lot currently
zoned for structures
no taller than seven stories.
And the project’s two
buildings will now boast a
total number of 1,578 apartments,
half of which would
still be so-called affordable.
But the recent design
changes did little to quell
garden leaders’ fears about
the lasting damage its shadows
could cause, according
to Reina-Longoria.
“Buildings of the proposed
height will have a signifi
cant, negative, and permanent
impact on BBG’s
conservatories, greenhouses,
and nurseries —
where plants for the entire
garden are propagated and
grown — by causing the
loss of as much as three
hours of sunlight daily in
spring, summer, and fall,”
she said.
Continuum reps will
present their latest proposal
at a March 12 scoping
meeting, where locals can
weigh in on terms for the
Continued on page 11