Stephen Bilkis

Stephen Bilkis graduated from Touro Law School in 1997. Soon after he passed the bar exam of New York and established the Law Offices of Stephen Bilkis & Associates. In over 20 years of practice, Mr. Bilkis has successfully represented scores of clients throughout Nassau County, Suffolk County, Westchester County, Queens, Brooklyn, Bronx, Manhattan, Long Island, and Staten Island in matters related to personal injury, probate law, criminal law, and family law.

Mr. Bilkis strongly believes that each client is unique and each case is different. His solutions are never “one size fits all.” He prides himself on listening to his clients, reviewing all facets of each case, and using his deep knowledge of New York law to come up with individualized solutions for each client.

Stephen Bilkis has been a member of various national and local bar organizations and associations including the New York State Bar Association, American Prepaid Legal Institute, the American Association for Justice, AARP Legal Services Network, and the New York State Trial Lawyers Association.

Stephen Bilkis and the staff at the Law Offices of Stephen Bilkis & Associates have well-earned reputations as knowledgeable and effective attorneys who fight for their clients’ legal rights. Because of this, the firm, its attorneys, and some of their notable cases or clients, in whole or in part, have been mentioned on several media outlets including CNN, CBS, CNBC, and ABC New York, as well as in the New York Times, New York Post and Newsday.

• Car Accidents

• Free Consultation

New York

Since 1997

Head of Law Office

Stephen Bilkis & Associates

Current

Touro Law School

10.0 Rating

Justia

AFL-CIO Union Privilege Legal Plan

Plan Administrator

Current

American Prepaid Legal Institute

Member

Current

New York State Trial Lawyers

Member

Current

New York State Bar  # 2842938

Member

1997 - Current

Union Plus Benefits for AFL-CIO Union Members Newsletter

Union Plus

Union Plus, AFL-CIO Legal Benefits Conference, Washington, DC

AFL-CIO

Gave yearly talks about employment benefit packages to the AFL-CIO Union leaders and members

Accepted Member

Writers Guild of America East

Q. Potential continuous treatment case after 2019 emergency surgery in NY, seeking medical malpractice legal help.

April 30, 2025

A: I'm sorry to hear about your experience and the uncertainty you're facing regarding your medical care after surgery. Navigating the aftermath of emergency treatment can be overwhelming, especially when follow-up care does not meet expectations and you are left with ongoing concerns about your health.

In New York, medical malpractice claims are subject to a two-and-a-half-year statute of limitations under CPLR § 214-a. This period typically begins on the date of the alleged negligent act or omission. However, New York recognizes the continuous treatment doctrine, which may allow the statute of limitations to be tolled if you were receiving ongoing treatment for the same condition from the same provider after the original incident.

If your emergency surgery occurred in 2019, and you continued to receive follow-up care from the same surgeon or medical team specifically for complications or symptoms related to that surgery, the limitations period may not have started until the date that ongoing treatment ended. It is not enough that you had occasional contact or unrelated appointments; the treatment must have been part of a continuous effort to address the same medical issue that gave rise to the potential malpractice.

To determine whether the continuous treatment doctrine applies, you should review your medical records and create a clear timeline showing all appointments, diagnoses, and treatments related to the surgical issue. This information will help establish whether a consistent course of treatment occurred and when it concluded. If there was a significant gap in care or treatment shifted to a different issue, the doctrine may not apply, and the standard statute of limitations could bar the claim.

Medical malpractice cases in New York also require that your attorney file a certificate of merit, confirming that a medical expert has reviewed the facts and believes the claim has merit. For this reason, it is important to consult with a medical malpractice attorney as soon as possible. An attorney can help assess whether your situation qualifies under the continuous treatment exception and advise you on the next steps.

This response is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For personalized guidance, please consult a qualified medical malpractice attorney licensed in New York. ... Read More

Q. Seeking legal review for potential medical negligence after robotic valve surgery in NY.

April 30, 2025

A: Based on the facts you’ve described, it may be appropriate to pursue a legal review for potential medical malpractice and negligence. In New York, to establish a viable medical malpractice claim, a plaintiff must show that a healthcare provider deviated from accepted standards of medical care and that this deviation caused an injury resulting in damages. The law also recognizes general negligence claims in hospital settings, such as those involving falls due to unsafe conditions.

There are two areas of concern in your situation. First is the fall from the hospital bed, which occurred when two bedrails were left down. Hospitals have a duty to maintain patient safety, especially for post-operative patients who may be disoriented or physically weakened. Leaving bedrails down when fall risk exists can be considered a breach of that duty. The apology from hospital staff and acknowledgment by your husband add weight to the claim that the fall could have been prevented with appropriate precautions. If the fall caused injury and prolonged pain, it may support a negligence claim separate from medical malpractice.

Second is the possible injury caused by the chest tube placement during robotic mitral valve surgery. If the chest tube damaged your lung and this injury was not promptly disclosed to you, it may indicate both a deviation from surgical standards and a failure to provide informed follow-up care. Moreover, if a CT scan revealed an injury that was not communicated to you or addressed appropriately, that could support a claim of delayed diagnosis or failure to treat. The persistence of pain despite consistent follow-up care and rehabilitation could strengthen the argument that the injury was not properly managed.

The surgical complication resulting in a heart attack due to ring placement may also be relevant, particularly if the complication was avoidable or if it was not properly disclosed before the procedure. However, not every surgical complication rises to the level of malpractice unless it can be shown that the outcome resulted from negligent technique or poor planning.

It is important to request your complete medical records, including surgical reports, CT scans, and post-operative notes, to evaluate whether the care you received met accepted standards.

This response is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For personalized guidance, please consult a qualified medical malpractice attorney licensed in New York. ... Read More

Q. Should I serve the RJI in my NY defamation case?

April 30, 2025

A: In a New York State Supreme Court civil case, such as a defamation action, filing a Request for Judicial Intervention (RJI) is required in order to trigger judicial oversight, including scheduling a preliminary conference or addressing motions. The RJI is not technically a pleading or motion, but a procedural document that alerts the court that the case is ready for judicial involvement.

There is no statutory requirement under the CPLR that a party serve the RJI on the opposing party. However, in practice, and particularly in cases where both parties are self-represented, it is often a good idea to serve a copy as a matter of courtesy and transparency. While the court clerk is correct that service of the RJI is not strictly required by law, some judges may prefer or expect both parties to have copies of all filings related to case scheduling and management. Moreover, if your RJI includes a request for a preliminary conference or is submitted in connection with a motion or application, then it is generally best practice to serve it.

Additionally, if the RJI is submitted with any accompanying documents—such as a preliminary conference request form or notice of motion—those materials typically must be served on the other party. In such cases, the service requirement would stem from the accompanying documents rather than the RJI itself. If the court is going to act on the RJI by scheduling a conference, issuing an order, or addressing attorney appearance changes, giving notice to the other party avoids any claims of unfairness or lack of proper communication.

Since both you and the defendant are self-represented, serving the RJI, along with any attached materials, helps ensure that the process remains fair and that all parties have the same information. You can do this by mailing a copy to the defendant and filing an affidavit of service if needed for the court record. This can help avoid unnecessary confusion or delay.

This response is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For personalized guidance, please consult a qualified attorney licensed in New York or speak with the court clerk for case-specific procedural questions. ... Read More

Lisa T. v. King E.T.

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Teri W.

New York Court of Appeals

Lohan v. Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc.

New York Court of Appeals

Rodriguez v. City of New York

New York Court of Appeals