Attorneys and Counselors at Law

Flink Maswick Law PLLC 

CALL US LEARN MORE ABOUT FLINK MASWICK LAW

Welcome To Flink Maswick Law PLLC

At Flink Maswick Law PLLC, our priority is our clients. We have two offices in the Adirondacks, one in Lake Placid, NY and one in Tupper Lake, NY.  Our Capital District office in Albany, NY is by appointment only. Drawing from the attorneys' combined legal experience of over 140 years, we regularly represent individuals, companies, and insurance carriers in a diverse set of circumstances and situations.  We tailor our representation to best achieve each client's needs, desires, and goals.

Practice Areas


Combined Attorney Experience Over 140 years

Experience helping clients in New York State

Member of  Million & Multi Million Dollar Advocates

Ed Flink is a long time member of both forums.

Super Lawyers - Rated Attorneys

Attorneys Flink,  Maswick, and O'Sullivan have been rated by Super Lawyers in New York State.

Statewide Coverage

Our attorneys regularly appear in Courts throughout New York State from the North Country to Long Island.

Combined Attorney Experience Over 140 years

Experience helping clients in New York State

Member of  Million & Multi Million Dollar Advocates

Edward B. Flink is a long time member of both forums.

Super Lawyers - Rated Attorneys


Attorneys Flink, Maswick, and O'Sullivan have been  rated by Super Lawyers in New York State.

Statewide Coverage




Our attorneys regularly appear in Courts throughout New York State from the North Country to Long Island.

News


By James L. Maswick and Elliot J. Vanier June 4, 2026
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.
By James L. Maswick and Elliot J. Vanier June 3, 2026
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.
Show More