Tomkiel & Tomkiel, PC
Law Firm Overview
The law firm of Tomkiel and Tomkiel, PC was first established in New York as a partnership between Stanley A. Tomkiel, Sr. and son Stanley A. Tomkiel, III. From the very start in 1979, we had a clear goal in mind: to help accident victims get fair and full financial compensation for their losses. This commitment to service continues with the third Tomkiel generation, Matthew P. Tomkiel, who joined the firm in 2003. In 2008 John P. Margand, an experienced New York City medical malpractice attorney, joined the firm as special counsel.
Even though Stanley A. Tomkiel, Sr. retired in 2008, our tradition of helping accident victims lives on. Tomkiel and Tomkiel, PC is now led by Stanley A. Tomkiel, III, with son Matthew P. Tomkiel of counsel, and employs a team of experienced personal injury professionals with a network of injury lawyers throughout New York, New Jersey and Florida. We continue to provide the results that our law firm has become known for.
Our results in personal injury and wrongful death cases have been acknowledged by a variety of prominent legal publications, including the Association of Trial Lawyers of America Law Reporter, the New York Jury Verdict Reporter and the New York Law Journal. Our firm is listed in the Bar Register of Pre-Eminent Lawyers, America's most exclusive directory of law firms. The Bar Register lists only those select law firms that have earned the AV® Rating in the Martindale-Hubbell Law Directory. We have therefore been designated by our colleagues as preeminent in our field.*
Exclusively Handling Personal Injury and Wrongful Death Cases
Our lawyers only handle matters related to personal injury and wrongful death. We represent injured people only, never insurance companies or corporations.
Our experience ranges from workplace and construction accident cases to defective products, medical negligence, truck, motorcycle and car accidents and beyond. We know the challenges that arise in every type of bodily injury case. We know how to overcome these challenges.
As part of our commitment to providing personal and comprehensive service in these cases, we can handle related matters such as workers' compensation in workplace accident cases and issues involving Social Security benefits. If we handle your lawsuit, we do not have to send you to another law firm to have these matters addressed.
Frequent Case Types
Read more about the types of cases we often handle.
- Construction Accident in Scarsdale, NY
- Nursing Home Negligence in Scarsdale, NY
- Work Injury in Scarsdale, NY
Areas of Practice
- Nursing Home Abuse
- Construction Accidents
- Falling Objects
- Bed Sores
- Physical Abuse
- Nurse or Physician Abuse
- Medical Malpractice
- Motor Vehicle Accidents -- Plaintiff
- Personal Injury -- Plaintiff
- Nieves v. Five Boro Air Conditioning & Refrigeration Corp., 93 N.Y. 2d 914, 712 N.E. 2d 1219 (1999)
- Gallello v. McCall, 247 A.D. 2d 693, 668 N.Y.S. 2d 728 (N.Y.A.D. 3 Dept. 1998)
- Berry v. New York City Bd. of Educ, 239 A.D. 2d 637, 657 N.Y.S.2d 786 (N.Y.A.D. 3 Dept. 1997)
- Nieves v. Five Boro Air Conditioning & Refrigeration Corp., 256 A.D. 2d 106, 683 N.Y.S. 2d 204 (N.Y.A.D. 1 Dept. 1998)
- Arbusto v. Fordham University, 160 A.D. 2d 191, 554 N.Y.S. 2d 2 (N.Y.A.D. 1 Dept. 1990)
- Czuchta v. Bribitzer, 111 A.D. 2d 145, 489 N.Y.S. 2d 697 (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept. 1985)
- Wirth v. DeVito, 89 A.D. 2d 603, 452 N.Y.S. 2d 463 (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept. 1982)
- Meaney v. Regan, 88 A.D. 2d 1020, 451 N.Y.S. 2d 915 (N.Y.A.D. 3 Dept. 1982)
- Mead v. Regan, 84 A.D. 2d 620, 444 N.Y.S. 2d 255 (N.Y.A.D. 3 Dept. 1981)
- Gentile v. New York City Housing Authority, 228 A.D. 2d 296, 643 N.Y.S. 2d 588 (N.Y.A.D. 1 Dept. 1996)
West Practice Categories
Car Accident, Construction, Medical Malpractice, Nursing Home Abuse, Personal Injury, Construction Accidents
Offers Free Initial Consultation
When viewing a listing, consider the state advertising restrictions to which lawyers and law firms must adhere, as well as our West Legal Directory disclaimers. Some lawyers publish comparative information regarding the services that they provide which may be subject to specific comparative communications restrictions.