I Andrew Park PC

I had an excellent experience with Andrew Park P.C. From the moment I contacted them, the team was professional, responsive, and truly dedicated to helping me. Andrew Park and his staff guided me through every step of my case, making sure I understood everything and felt supported throughout the process.

Their expertise in personal injury law was evident, and they worked tirelessly to ensure I received the best possible outcome. Communication was always clear, and they were quick to answer any questions I had. I felt like they genuinely cared about my situation, which made a huge difference during a stressful time.

I highly recommend Andrew Park P.C. to anyone in need of a reliable and experienced legal team. Thank you for your hard work and dedication!

Going in person the Asian receptionist would take uber long, and the space upstairs would be sharply walking and the like.
A proper recollection of the events, these guys were offered from the “buffet of lawyer” from ENGLEWOOD CLIFFS NJ. As a litigator for PI, the minority lady the Asian receptionist got, wouldn’t answer any questions, escalating tonality and/or harmony or an onslaught of red herrings coupled with the prior tonality issue(s). In other words, is their job even at a law firm? The minority lady would appear to also have eye related health problems, as such this was copulating rather foully.

'No evidence or argument has yet been presented which would change my mind. But I like surprises.'
This was not a surprise, therefore not liked. It really is just another example of the “mixing up,” that happens with law related professions, fortunately or unfortunately. I wonder if this law firm was ever offered a case dealing with a violation of the 14th amendment. Would they take the same route…They argue that this standard includes a subjective element—whether the officers behaved "maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm." Appellants’ Br. at 33 (quoting Tierney v. Davidson , 133 F.3d 189, 196 (2d Cir. 1998) ).
AFFIRM the district court’s order insofar as it denied defendants qualified immunity for the Fourteenth Amendment claim. But we have also found excessive force under the Fourteenth Amendment without ever examining an officer’s subjective intent. See, e.g. , Robison v. Via , 821 F.2d 913, 924 (2d Cir. 1987) ; Bellows v. Dainack , 555 F.2d 1105, 1106 & n.1 (2d Cir. 1977). Officers are entitled to qualified immunity "unless a plaintiff pleads facts showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, Those incarcerated for a criminal conviction draw on the Eighth Amendment’s ban on "cruel and unusual punishments."

“I enjoy personal injury cases. I've tried quite a few of those. And, frankly, any kind of litigation that is trouble-shooting, whether it's equities, suits and injunctions, or whatever.”
-F. Lee Bailey
Books… his cross-examination of Mark Fuhrman is legendary…

The worst of the worst
Please run away from them 🤢
He’s running a business to make money for himself not for us 🤢🤢🤢🤢
Disgusting 🤮…..