Recent Results

First Department Reversed Motion Court’s Denial of our Client’s Motion for Summary Judgment

Plaintiff alleged that he fell into a drain pipe in the meter room of a building owned by co-defendant.  Our client leased a portion of the building and occasionally stored some items in the meter room.  The Supreme Court, New York County, denied our motion for summary judgment, finding that the fact that our client had a key to the meter room was sufficient to create a question of fact concerning control of the room.  The Appellate Division, First Department reversed, determining that our client could not be held liable for an alleged dangerous/defective condition that he did not create, and which occurred in a room that he did not own, control, occupy, inspect or maintain.  (Appellate Division, First Department, December 2011).

Court Denies Application to File a Late Notice of Claim against Municipality

Infant claimant sustained burn injuries after he was placed on a police officer’s motorcycle at our municipal client’s Safety Fair.  Approximately 1 year after the incident, claimant, through his mother, sought permission to file a late notice of claim.  Vigorous opposition was presented on our client’s behalf with several affidavits in support showing prejudice.  Despite the fact that the injured claimant was an infant, the court denied his application.  The court agreed with our argument that claimant failed to offer a reasonable excuse for the lateness.  (Supreme Court, Nassau County, December 2011).

Second Department Affirmed Motion Court’s Decision Upholding “Limited Liability” Provision in Alarm Contract

Our client was hired to monitor plaintiff's home burglary system which had been improperly installed by an independent party.  As a result of the improper installation, when burglars cut the phone wires, no alarm code was transmitted to our client.  The motion court held that there were no grounds to support a finding of gross negligence against our client.  The court further ruled that the monitoring agreement, limiting our client's liability to $250 for negligence, was valid and enforceable.  Plaintiff appealed and the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the motion court’s decision limiting our client’s liability to $250.  (Appellate Division, Second Department, November 2011). 

Multi-Vehicle Accident Lawsuit Dismissed Against Our Client

Plaintiff, a sleeping passenger in a co-defendants’ vehicle, commenced a lawsuit against several individuals involved in this three-car accident.  Our client maintained that he became involved in the accident only after the impact with plaintiff’s vehicle had occurred.  We moved for summary judgment on behalf of our client, arguing that there was no testimonial evidence to support a finding that our client was involved in the initial accident involving plaintiff’s vehicle. The court agreed and dismissed plaintiff’s complaint and all cross-claims as against our client.  (Supreme Court, Kings County, November 2011). 

Construction Company Found Not Liable for Alleged Defect in Handicapped Ramp

Plaintiff fell on a curb/handicapped ramp leading into a Suffolk County diner.  Our client constructed the building that housed the diner.  The Supreme Court, Suffolk County granted our motion for summary judgment on three separate grounds: (i) plaintiff could not identify the location of her fall; (ii) defendant did not have a duty to the plaintiff as it did not own, control or make a special use of the accident location; and (iii) the accident location was open and obvious as a matter of law. (Supreme Court, Suffolk County, November 2011).

Declaratory Judgment Granted in Favor of Client

In the underlying action, a worker sustained severe injuries when a steel girder being transported fell on him after the forklift hit a rut in the ground.  On behalf of the owner and general contractor, we commenced a declaratory judgment action seeking additional insured status from the insurer of the excavator responsible for the groundwork.  We moved for summary judgment, arguing that the duty to defend is triggered by plaintiff’s allegation that the faulty groundwork was a cause of the accident. The excavator’s insurer argued that our client was not additional insured because the groundwork had nothing to do with the accident.  The court declared that the defendant insurer owed our client a defense, and also granted our client a conditional order of indemnification.  (Supreme Court, Suffolk County, October 2011).     

Plaintiff’s Complaint Dismissed in Alleged Defective Tire Installation Claim

In this personal injury lawsuit, plaintiff was involved in a one-vehicle accident on an off-ramp of a major highway.  He alleged that one of his tires “collapsed” and/or “came off” the vehicle as he was negotiating the curve.  Our client had installed the tire on the vehicle six months earlier.  Subsequent to the accident, the tire was recovered by the plaintiff and allegedly lost by an expert retained by plaintiff’s attorney.  We procured dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint against our client, arguing that the loss of the tire rendered plaintiff’s version of events speculative.  The court agreed, holding that the plaintiff’s theory of liability (ie, that the collision was caused by negligence in the placement, mounting and installation of the tires) was unsupported by any probative evidence in admissible form and amounts to sheer conjecture and speculation.  (Supreme Court, Suffolk County, October 2011).   

Tenant Granted Summary Judgment in New York City Sidewalk Trip and Fall Lawsuit 

Plaintiff tripped and fell over a raised sidewalk slab on a public sidewalk owned by the City of New York.  Plaintiff brought suit against the City of New York, the abutting property owner, and our client, the lessee of the abutting property.  On our motion, summary judgment was granted in favor of our client based on our showing that our client owed no duty to the plaintiff regarding the sidewalk, as it did not own it, maintain it or derive a special use from it. (Supreme Court, Richmond County, October 2011). 

Summary Judgment Dismissal of Plaintiff’s Complaint Awarded to Defendant-General Contractor

Plaintiff, a backseat passenger in a taxi, claimed she was injured when a brick fell from a building under construction.  Specifically, she alleged that a brick became dislodged from the building, fell horizontally across the sidewalk and into the roadway and broke through the cab’s window striking her in the head. The court granted our motion for summary judgment on the basis of our arguments that plaintiff’s version of events was physically impossible.  (Civil Court, Queens County, June 2011). 

Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a Late Amended Notice of Claim Denied

Plaintiff timely filed her Notice of Claim and summons and complaint for personal injury.  She then attempted to file an Amended Notice of Claim alleging a claim for property damage to her husband’s vehicle, which she was driving at the time of the accident.  We opposed plaintiff’s motion, arguing that plaintiff does not have standing to assert a property damage claim on behalf of her husband, that the husband’s claim is untimely and that amendments of a substantive nature to add a new theory of recovery are not permissible.  The court agreed and denied plaintiff’s motion to amend.  Supreme Court, Nassau County, June 2011). 

Threshold Motion Granted; Court Determines that Plaintiff did not Sustain “Serious Injury” as defined by New York’s Insurance Law Sec. 5102(d).

We filed a motion for summary judgment to dismiss plaintiff’s compliant on the ground that he did not sustain “serious injury” as defined by Insurance Law § 5102(d).  Plaintiff alleged that he sustained a significant limitation, despite that he stopped receiving medical treatment in 2008.  The court agreed that plaintiff failed to provide any reason for plaintiff’s cessation of treatment, other than that he had healed.  The court also found that plaintiff did not sustain his burden under the 90/180 category of Insurance Law § 5102(d), as plaintiff’s Bill of Particulars stated that he was confined to bed for a few days and confined to home for two weeks. Thus, the court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint as a matter of law.  (Supreme Court, New York County, June 2011). 

Motion for Summary Judgment Granted; No Connection Between Client’s Work and Alleged Defect 

Plaintiff was injured when he tripped and fell over a negligent condition in the roadway.  Our client, hired to perform plumbing work nearby did not commence work until two weeks after the accident.  Thus, our motion for summary judgment was granted for lack of cause or connection between our client’s work and the alleged defective condition.  (Supreme Court, Kings County, June 2011). 

Plaintiff’s Direct Action Dismissed Pursuant to Espinal Doctrine

Plaintiff claimed that he slipped and fell on ice on a common walkway within the condominium development where he resides.  Our client, the snow-removal contractor, moved for summary judgment against the plaintiff, pursuant to the Espinal case, on the ground that it owed no duty to the plaintiff.  The court agreed with our argument that plaintiff did not detrimentally rely on the existence of the contract, that our client did not displace the owner’s duty to maintain the property and that our client did not launch a force or instrument of harm as against the plaintiff.  Accordingly, the court dismissed plaintiff’s claims against our client.  (Supreme Court, Richmond County, September 2011). 

Trial Verdict: Future Pain and Suffering Claim Limited to $5,000 per year

This was a trial on damages only. The 50-year old plaintiff fell from a ladder and sustained a severe intra-articular distal radius and ulnar styloid fracture. Plaintiff testified that he continues to have pain, weakness and loss of range of motion. Plaintiff’s doctors testified that he still suffers post-traumatic arthritis of the radial carpal joint and non-union of ulna styloid. The orthopedic surgeon further testified that plaintiff would eventually require radial carpal fusion, and would suffer from progressive arthritis. The total jury award of $168,000.00 ($40,000.00 for past pain and suffering, and $128,000.00 for future pain and suffering) was $600,000.00 less than plaintiff’s final settlement demand. (Supreme Court, Bronx County, May 2011).

Trip and Fall Action Dismissed Against Asphalt Company

In this action, plaintiff claimed that she tripped and fell in a pothole on a public roadway. Photographs taken after the accident appeared to show an embedded mudflap in the bottom of the pothole. Plaintiff argued that the mudflap had been paved into the asphalt during our client’s paving operations, which were completed some five years prior to plaintiff’s accident. The court dismissed the action against our client, as our client owed no duty to the plaintiff and post-construction inspections by co-defendant Village revealed no defects in the pavement work. (Supreme Court, Westchester County, May 2011).

Determination of “No Coverage” Made Following Framed Issue Hearing

In an action to stay an Uninsured Motorist Arbitration, we successfully argued that the vehicle listed on the police report was not a “listed covered auto” on the policy of insurance issued by our client, an insurance carrier. We also successfully argued that the license plate and VIN number matching the plate provided on the police report, matching a different vehicle was also not a “listed covered auto” on the carrier’s policy. Thus, the Court determined that no coverage would be afforded by our client’s policy. (Supreme Court, Bronx County, May 2011).

Summary Judgment Dismissal Upheld on Appeal

In this action, plaintiff claimed to have tripped over a cobblestone that lined our client’s parking lot after climbing up a small embankment onto our client’s premises. Our client’s award of summary judgment dismissal was recently upheld by the Appellate Division, Second Department. The court unanimously agreed with our opposition that the alleged defective condition was open and obvious and not inherently dangerous. (Appellate Division, Second Department, May 2011).

Summary Judgment Granted to Real Estate Broker in Wooden Stair Collapse Case

Plaintiff, the prospective purchaser of a bank-owned home in foreclosure, was injured when the rear deck’s steps collapsed as plaintiff attempted to walk down them. Our client, a real estate broker, had been hired by the bank to market the home. The contract between the bank and our client raised an issue of fact as to whether our client had assumed the bank’s responsibility for inspection and maintenance of the property. Regardless, the court granted our motion for summary judgment, dismissing plaintiff’s complaint against both our client and the bank, based on our argument that neither our client nor the bank had either actual or constructive notice of the deteriorated condition of the steps. (Supreme Court, New York County, April 2011).

Summary Judgment Awarded to Homeowner in Fall Down Staircase

Plaintiff claimed numerous serious injuries following a fall down a staircase in our client’s home. Plaintiff claimed that the banister separated from the wall while she was descending the staircase and alleged that the banister was improperly secured to the wall. We moved for summary judgment arguing that our client never performed any work on the banister and had no notice of the condition. The court granted summary judgment to our client dismissing plaintiff’s complaint. (Supreme Court, Nassau County, March 2011).

Denial of Summary Judgment Reversed on Appeal

We represented a livery cab driver in this two-vehicle accident case.  Our client was stopped by a curb on First Avenue in Manhattan to allow his passengers to exit.  The plaintiff was one of the passengers.  While our client's vehicle was stopped, it was sideswiped by a City bus. 

The Supreme Court, New York County denied our motion for summary judgment, based upon co-defendant’s claim that our client was illegally stopped too far from the curb (in violation of a City statute) and testimony that our client was partially blocking the bus’s lane of travel.  The Appellate Division reversed, holding that our client's vehicle "merely furnished the condition or occasion for the occurrence of the event rather than constituting one of its causes."  (Appellate Division, First Department, February 2011)

Summary Judgment Granted to Plumbing Contractor

Plaintiff, a police officer, sustained injuries when he tripped and fell over a hole in the street while chasing a suspect in the line of duty.  We moved for summary judgment on behalf of our client, a plumbing contractor.  We argued that our client had not performed any work that could have resulted in the defect or contributed to the accident.  Specifically, our client had performed work at a location plaintiff had not yet reached when he fell.

The Court agreed, granting summary judgment to our client, dismissing the complaint and all cross claims. (Supreme Court, New York County, January 2011).

Default Judgment Vacated

Plaintiff brought suit to recover for injuries allegedly sustained when an elevator door closed on her head.  Plaintiff alleged that our client, a company specializing in installation of garage doors, had installed and/or serviced the elevator door.  Plaintiff attempted to serve our client through the Secretary of State, and when no appearance was made, obtained a default judgment against our client.

We moved to vacate the default judgment, establishing that our client had not actually received the complaint from the Secretary of State, and in fact that the Secretary of State's mailing, although made to a correct address, was returned by the post office.  The Court vacated the default judgment, allowing us to serve an answer and defend this matter on behalf of our blameless client. (Supreme Court, New York County, December 2010.)

Motion For Summary Judgment Dismissal Granted

In this case, plaintiff sued our client, despite that she had previously executed a general release.  We moved for dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint based upon the language of the release, which released and discharged the defendants from all actions, damages and judgments, claims and demands relating to the subject motor vehicle accident.  Plaintiff argued that there was a misunderstanding as to whether the first settlement was for property damage only.  The court found that the language of the release was clear and unambiguous and thus, effect should be given to the intention of the parties as indicated by the language employed and that the fact that one of the parties may have intended something else is irrelevant.  The court further noted that plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact to demonstrate fraud, duress, or similar inequitable conduct. (Supreme Court, Nassau County, February 2011)

Claim for Additional Liability Insurance (ALI) Dismissed

In this declaratory judgment action, the claimant/renter sought $1 million in Additional Liability Insurance (ALI) from our client, a car rental company.  The renter of the vehicle purchased ALI insurance when the vehicle was rented, but that renter was not the driver at the time of the accident.  The court agreed with our argument that the driver at the time of the accident did not come within the specified class of “authorized drivers” entitled to ALI as defined by the rental agreement, and declared that our client’s insurance obligations were capped at New York’s mandatory minimum limits of $25,000/$50,000.  (Supreme Court, Queens County, November 2010).

Claim for Additional Insurance Coverage Dismissed on Appeal

In the declaratory judgment action, the owner and general contractor sought additional insured status from our client, the insurance carrier for the decedent’s employer, based upon an oral agreement to provide such coverage.  The trial court held in favor of plaintiffs, finding that the language in the blanket additional insured endorsement that the agreement to provide insurance must be pursuant to a “written contract, agreement or permit” did not require a writing and was satisfied by the alleged oral agreement.  The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed and dismissed the action, agreeing with our argument that further language in the endorsement that the agreement to provide insurance must be “executed” prior to the accident requires the agreement to be either signed or fully performed at the time of the accident, which it was not.  (Supreme Court, Kings County, November 2010).

Slip and Fall Case Dismissed Against Cleaning Company

In this personal injury case, plaintiff claimed that he slipped and fell on a “streak” of water that appeared to run from a janitor’s closet toward the men’s bathroom.  Plaintiff alleged that the streak was created by our client, the cleaning service contractor, when it mopped the bathroom floor and thereafter returned the mop and bucket to the janitor’s closet. 

We were awarded summary judgment dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to Espinal, as our client did not completely displace the owners’ duty to maintain the premises nor did plaintiff detrimentally rely upon our client’s contract with the property owner.  Lastly, the court determined that our client did not launch a force or instrument of harm upon the plaintiff, as our client neither created nor exacerbated the wet condition complained upon which plaintiff slipped.  (Supreme Court, Suffolk County, December 2010).

Defense Verdict: Defendant’s Negligence Not a Substantial Factor in Ladder Accident

Father sustained injuries after he fell from a ladder in his son’s home while painting. Son was holding the ladder and let go for a moment to adjust the floor covering. We argued that plaintiff, an experienced painter, chose the wrong ladder for the project and placed it on a slippery floor covering. While the jury found that our client was negligent in releasing the ladder, it unanimously found that the negligence was not a substantial factor in causing the accident. (Supreme Court, Suffolk County, October 2010).

Appellate Division Reversed Lower Court’s Decision and Granted Dismissal of Plaintiff’s Labor Law § 241(6) Claims

The Kings County motion court denied our motion for summary judgment dismissal of plaintiff’s Labor Law § 241(6) claims. The court found that there were questions of fact concerning the applicability of three Industrial Code provisions that plaintiff alleged our client violated. On appeal, we obtained a reversal of that portion of the lower Court decision which denied our motion for summary dismissal of plaintiff's Labor Law §241(6) cause of action. (Appellate Division, Second Dept., September 2010)

Appeal Granted Dismissing Complaint in Declaratory Judgment Action

Plaintiff claimed that he was injured at a construction site in Brooklyn, New York. The owner and construction manager commenced a declaratory judgment action against our insurance company client seeking additional insured status based upon an oral agreement with the named insured (plaintiff’s employer). The motion court granted summary judgment to the owner and construction manager.

On appeal, the Appellate Court accepted our argument that the policy language requiring that the agreement be “executed” excluded the possibility of an oral agreement triggering the additional insured endorsement. Only a written contract would satisfy the policy requirement that the agreement be “executed”. (Appellate Division, Second Department, November 2010).

Summary Judgment Granted to Municipal Defendant in Trip and Fall on Street

We moved for summary judgment dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint, arguing that our municipal client had no prior written notice of the pavement defect upon which plaintiff tripped. Plaintiff argued, in opposition, that the Town affirmatively created the condition. The court granted our summary judgment motion, holding that an ineffective pothole repair that does not make the condition any worse does not constitute an affirmative act. (Supreme Court, Nassau County, November 2010).

Appeals Court Affirms Award of Summary Judgment in Labor Law Case

Plaintiff claimed injury from an incident on a staircase where he was working as a concrete finisher. He claimed to have slipped on materials left on the staircase before falling out of an unguarded window opening. The Supreme Court, Monroe County, granted summary judgment dismissal with regard to plaintiff’s Labor Law § 240(1) claim. On appeal, plaintiff argued for the application of Labor Law § 240(1) because he fell through a window. We argued that § 240(1) did not apply because plaintiff’s work did not involve an elevation differential and because the staircase was permanent in nature. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s ruling in our favor. (Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department, October 2010).

Claim of Gross Negligence Dismissed, “Limited Liability” Provision in Contract Upheld

Our client was hired to monitor plaintiff's home burglary system which had been installed by an independent party. The system was designed to transmit alarm information by telephone line, with a radio transmitter as a back up unit. However, the radio transmitter was not installed properly. When burglars cut the phone wires, the improperly installed radio transmitter did not transmit an alarm code to our client.

On motion for summary judgment, the court held that our client's liability, if any, was limited to simple negligence, as grounds for a finding of gross negligence did not exist as a matter of law. The court further ruled that the monitoring agreement, limiting our client's liability to $250 for negligence, was valid and enforceable. (Supreme Court, Nassau County, October 2010).

Defense Verdict:  Plaintiff’s Employer Found Not Liable for Fall Through Opening

Plaintiff had fallen through a stairwell opening from the first floor to the basement.  Though the opening was covered with plywood, the cover was not secured in the manner required by the Industrial Code.  Plaintiff obtained summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240(1) against the direct defendants.  The court proceeded to a damages trial (before liability between defendants was assessed). 

At the damages trial, the trial judge ruled in our favor and dismissed plaintiff’s $1 million lost wages claim in light of plaintiff’s self-determination (as opposed to a medical determination) that he was incapable of working.  The jury did award plaintiff a verdict of $425,065 for pain and suffering and medical expenses. 

At the later “liability trial” among the defendants, the jury ruled that our client, plaintiff’s employer, was not negligent and the claims by the owner and developer/general contractor were dismissed. (Supreme Court, Orange County, July 2010)

Negligent Maintenance Claim Dismissed

Our client, installer of a fire suppressant system at a gas station, was sued by plaintiff following an incident where the system spontaneously discharged while she was pumping gas.  Our client had installed the system fifteen years earlier and maintained it until two years prior to the incident.  In granting our motion to dismiss, the court held that our client could not be held liable for any defects in the system, which had passed an inspection performed by another company three months before this incident.  (Supreme Court, Suffolk County, July 2010). 

Delay in Prosecution Leads to Dismissal of Plaintiff’s Action

In this action against our municipal client, plaintiff sought to revive a case that had been marked stayed while on the trial calendar in 2003.   Plaintiff requested the stay because of ongoing medical issues.  Plaintiff filed a motion seeking restoration to the trial calendar; we opposed and cross-moved for permanent dismissal.  The court dismissed plaintiff’s case, determining that she had indeed abandoned the case and that a 13-year delay between the accident date and the trial would prejudice the defendants.  (Supreme Court, Nassau County, July 2010). 

Property Owner Granted Summary Judgment in Trip and Fall Case

Plaintiff claims to have tripped over a hole in the sidewalk in front of our client’s vacant Brooklyn property.  Plaintiff saw the hole prior to his fall and took no measures to walk around it.  The court held that our client was not liable for this open and obvious condition.  (Supreme Court, Kings County, June 2010).

Commercial Tenant Granted Summary Judgment in Sidewalk Trip and Fall Case

Plaintiff tripped and fell on a brick decorative sidewalk abutting our client's retail store in the Village of Great Neck.  We moved for summary judgment dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint, arguing that, although a local ordinance imposed upon owners/occupiers the responsibility to maintain the sidewalk abutting their property, the ordinance did not provide for the imposition of tort liability for injuries caused by a violation of this statutory obligation.  The court agreed, and dismissed the action against the landowner and our client, its tenant. (Supreme Court, Nassau County, June 2010). 

Summary Judgment Dismissal Granted in Trip and Fall Case

Plaintiff, a pedestrian on a public sidewalk, claimed to have tripped and fell over a portion of plastic construction fencing that was strewn across the sidewalk.  The court granted summary judgment to our client, the foundation contractor who had not worked at the site for one month prior to the date of loss.  (Supreme Court, Nassau County, April 2010).

Property Owner Awarded Common Law Indemnification from General Contractor

Plaintiff fell on a construction-related defect on the public sidewalk in front of our client’s New York City property.  The court determined that our client did not supervise, direct or control the construction work, and that there was no evidence that our client was negligent.  The court awarded conditional common law indemnification in favor of our client, against the general contractor.  (Supreme Court, Kings County, April 2010).

Wrongful Death Case Dismissed Against Client

The infant plaintiff decedent was ejected from a rental car owned by our client when it veered off a road due to the negligence of its driver.  The court granted our motion to dismiss pursuant to 49 U.S.C. Sec. 30106, otherwise known as the Transportation Equity Act, which eliminated vicarious liability against rental car companies. (Supreme Court, Queens County, March 2010).

Trial Verdict:  General Contractor Held 50% at Fault for Labor Law Accident Involving our Client’s Employee

Plaintiff, our client’s employee, was injured while working on a scaffold that collapsed.  Plaintiff fell twelve feet and sustained a serious skull fracture that required a craniotomy.  Plaintiff was granted summary judgment against all the defendants pursuant to Labor Law § 240(1), including our client who failed to provide plaintiff with Workers Compensation benefits.  Our client, the carpentry contractor, was responsible for plaintiff’s direction and supervision and erected the scaffold that collapsed. 

Nevertheless, at trial, the jury held the general contractor 50% responsible for the accident, finding that it had the ultimate responsibility for the safety at the worksite and allowed the scaffold to exist without taking any measures to protect plaintiff.  Thus, we successfully defeated the indemnification claims and limited our client’s exposure to its proportionate share of negligence.  (Supreme Court, Queens County, March 2010).

Summary Judgment Defeated in Scaffold/Labor Law § 240(1) Claim

We represented the owner and general contractor with respect to this construction site accident.   Plaintiff alleged that he fell from a bakers scaffold that lacked proper wheel locks and moved for summary judgment under Labor Law § 240(1).  We successfully defeated the motion, utilizing the deposition testimony of plaintiff’s foreman who testified that he had used the scaffold before and after plaintiff’s accident and that the wheel locks functioned properly.  The court found a question of fact as to whether an adequate safety device had been provided. (Supreme Court, Queens County, February 2010)

Client Found Not to be General Contractor - Granted Summary Judgment Dismissal of Plaintiff’s Labor Law Complaint

Plaintiff, a plasterer, fell from a scaffold while renovating a building, fracturing his heel requiring surgery.  He brought suit against our client, the alleged general contractor.  The court granted our motion for summary judgment dismissal, holding that a party who signs for work permit, but does not hire subcontractors, perform work or have the authority to control the work, does not qualify as a general contractor under the Labor Law.  The court further held that our client was not negligent, and dismissed the complaint against him. (Supreme Court, Kings County, January 2010)

Trip and Fall Lawsuit Dismissed Against Our Client Before Depositions

We represented a contractor who engages in cutting holes in NYC streets in order for other contractors to perform their work.  Plaintiff commenced a lawsuit against our client, alleging that she fell due to a defect created by our client’s work.  The court determined that we established our client’s entitlement to summary judgment dismissal by submitting a sworn affidavit along with NYC DOT records showing that our client performed no work in the immediate area of the accident.  (Supreme Court, Kings County, January 2010)

Client/Property Owner Granted Summary Judgment in Trip and Fall Case

The plaintiff claimed to have tripped over a cobblestone that lined our client’s parking lot after climbing up a small embankment onto our client’s premises.  The court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint, finding that we submitted prima facie evidence that the alleged defective condition was open and obvious, was known to the plaintiff, and was not inherently dangerous.  The court found no duty to warn plaintiff of this open and obvious condition.  The court agreed with our argument and excluded plaintiff’s expert affidavits as speculative and conclusory.  (Supreme Court, Nassau County, December 2009)

Summary Judgment Dismissal Granted on Constructive Notice Case

Plaintiff alleged that he slipped and fell on our commercial client’s exterior stairs.  He alleged that our client had left a garbage bag on the porch, which leaked oil and debris overnight.  The court determined that our client had neither actual nor constructive notice of the slippery condition on the steps.  The fact that the non-defective garbage bag was placed on an outside porch, with the possibility that it may be damaged by another force (for example, animals) was found to be insufficient to charge our clients with constructive notice.  (Supreme Court, Kings County, December 2009)

Labor Law § 240(1) Claim Dismissed in Case of Paraplegia

In this high-exposure Labor Law § 240(1) case, a contractor’s employee fell through an unguarded skylight in the school’s roof and was rendered paraplegic.  We argued that the elevated portion of the roof where the accident occurred was not an area where construction was to be performed.  The court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint, holding that plaintiff was not entitled to the extraordinary protections of the Labor Law because he was not within the construction area.  (Supreme Court, Nassau County, December 2009)

Garage Operator Granted Summary Judgment Dismissal in Trip and Fall Case

Plaintiff tripped on a carpet mat located in a parking garage while entering the garage from an adjoining building.  She brought suit against the owner of the building, the owner of the garage, and our client who was hired to operate the garage.  Summary judgment was granted to our client upon our showing that the building owner had placed and maintained the mat, and that our client/garage operator did not have authority to remove or prevent the placement of the mat. (Supreme Court, Queens County, December 2009)

New York Lawsuit Dismissed Against Out-of-State Defendants for Lack of Jurisdiction

This personal injury lawsuit stemmed from a two-car accident that occurred in Virginia.  We represented the owner of one of the vehicles, a Maryland corporation.  We also represented the driver of the vehicle, a resident of Virginia.  The court granted our motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, as plaintiff could not demonstrate that either of our clients had a connection to New York State that would support jurisdiction.  (Supreme Court, Kings County, November 2009)

Court’s Denial of Summary Judgment to Plaintiff Upheld on Appeal

Plaintiff sued his son for injuries he sustained when he fell from an unsecured ladder while painting a room in his son’s home.  Plaintiff moved for summary judgment on liability, based upon the son’s admission that the ladder slipped when he let it go to adjust a floor covering.  The appellate court upheld the motion court’s determination that defendant’s admission of negligence did not establish plaintiff’s freedom from comparative negligence.  (Appellate Division, Second Department, October 2009)

Negligent Maintenance Case Dismissed Against Commercial Tenants of Building

Plaintiff slipped on a wet tile floor in the lobby of her cooperative building, fracturing her wrist.  She brought suit against the building owner, and our two clients who were long term commercial tenants.  Our clients were granted summary judgment dismissal after our prima facie showing that they undertook no maintenance responsibilities with respect to the lobby.  (Supreme Court, Bronx County, October 2009)

Defense Verdict in Erie County, NY
The jury found that our client was free from liability in a two-vehicle accident at an intersection.  The plaintiff claimed severe damages, including spinal injuries and complications during a subsequent child-birth, allegedly resulting in birth defects. (Supreme Court, Erie County, November 2009).

Appellate Division, First Department Upholds Award of Summary Judgment in Slip and Fall
In November, 2007, our client, a hotel operator, was granted summary judgment dismissal of hotel patron’s slip and fall/products liability action involving an allegedly defective bathmat placed on a ceramic tile floor.  Plaintiff appealed.  The Appellate Division, First Department, upheld the motion court’s decision.  (Appellate Division, First Department, May 2009).

Defense Verdict in Tractor Trailer Sideswipe Accident
Plaintiff alleged that our client, a tractor trailer driver, sideswiped his vehicle while making a wide turn.  The jury determined that our client was not negligent and that plaintiff was 100% at fault for this accident.  Plaintiff, who underwent a cervical fusion and a knee arthroscopy as a result of the incident, maintained a $2.3 million settlement demand during trial.   (Supreme Court, Queens County, April 2009). 

Motion Practice in Declaratory Judgment Action Results in Finding by Court that Co-Defendant was Actively Negligent
In this declaratory judgment action, we represented an insurance company that issued a commercial liability policy to a framing contractor.  An employee of the framing contractor fell through an unguarded stairwell opening.  Through a motion for partial summary judgment, we obtained a declaration from the court that the safety railing protecting the stairwell opening had been removed by another contractor, thus rendering that contractor actively negligent.  As a result, that contractor’s insurance policy will provide primary coverage for this accident.  (Supreme Court, Orange County, April, 2009)

Labor Law § 200, 241(6) and Common Law Negligence Claims Dismissed
Trial Court dismissed causes of action sounding in Labor Law § 200, 241(6) and common law negligence asserted by plaintiff, a retired police officer, who inserted himself into the turning barrel of a cement truck to test the cement.  Plaintiff claimed that the cement truck’s interior slump gauge was broken, thus requiring him to test the cement in this manner.  Plaintiff slipped when he attempted back out of the moving barrel. The court found that our clients did not violate an Industrial Code provision or direct, supervise or control plaintiff’s work.  The Court also denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment under Labor Law § 240(1), finding that a triable issue of fact exists as to whether plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of his own accident. (Supreme Court, Queens County, April, 2009)

Pre-Answer Motion to Dismiss Granted
Plaintiff, a former municipal worker, sued the municipality for lost pension and health benefits. Plaintiff claimed that his decision to leave his employment was based upon fraudulent information provided by his employer. The Court found: 1.) that plaintiff did not sustain his burden of proving that the alleged fraud could not have been discovered prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations; and 2.) that plaintiff failed to timely serve his complaint.  (Supreme Court, March 2009)

Teenaged Plaintiff’s Head-Injury Case Dismissed Under Doctrine of Primary Assumption of Risk
While playing in a basketball league, plaintiff slipped and fell on water that had leaked from an overhead air conditioning unit.  All parties agreed that there was a recurring leaking condition long before plaintiff’s accident.  The court granted our motion for summary judgment, holding that plaintiff’s actual knowledge of the recurring problem invoked the primary assumption of risk doctrine.  (Supreme Court, Orange County, March 2009)

Claim Against Municipal Defendant Dismissed Based Upon Lack of Specificity in Plaintiff’s Notice of Claim
In this trip and fall case, claimant filed a Notice of Claim alleging that he tripped and fell at a boat ramp at a park owned by our client, a municipality.  When plaintiff put the claim into suit, we filed a pre-answer motion to dismiss plaintiff’s action for filing a defective Notice of Claim.  We argued that the lack of specificity in the Notice of Claim precluded the municipality from conducting an appropriate investigation.  The motion court agreed, and dismissed plaintiff’s complaint.  By filing a pre-Answer motion, we resolved this case quickly and with minimal legal costs to our client.  (Supreme Court, February 2009). 

Plaintiff Held to Binding Arbitration Agreement
We successfully moved to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint where plaintiff attempted to renege on an agreement to submit his claim to binding arbitration.  The court agreed with our position that all parties had reached a meeting of the minds as to the basic terms of the arbitration agreement.  The court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint and issued an Order compelling plaintiff to proceed with the arbitration.  (Supreme Court, Nassau County, February 2009)

Client Found Free of Active Negligence, Opening the Door for Successful Common Law Indemnification Claims Against Subcontractor
Plaintiff, a masonry laborer, sustained crush injuries to two fingers requiring several surgeries when he and a cart filled with stones he was pushing both fell over.  Plaintiff claimed that he tripped over a carpet remnant left by our client’s subcontractor.  Our client, a carpet sales company was found by the Court to be free of negligence as a matter of law.  The motion practice successfully established the first prong of the common law indemnification claim our client is pursuing against its subcontractor/carpet installation company. (Supreme Court, New York County, February, 2009)

Slip and Fall Dismissed
Summary judgment granted in favor of client/owner of a gravel-surfaced parking lot.  Plaintiff slipped on the gravel while descending from a bus and sustained severe injuries requiring multiple surgeries. In granting our dismissal motion, the court held that the gravel was not a significant structural or design defect.  The court further held that our client did not violate any safety provisions and agreed that plaintiff’s expert should be disregarded as he did not examine the property until two years after the accident.  (Supreme Court, Bronx County, February 2009)

Threshold Motion Granted
Summary Judgment granted in favor of clients, owner and operator of rental vehicle, where medical evidence established that plaintiff did not sustain a “serious injury” pursuant to New York Insurance Law.  The court also dismissed plaintiff’s complaint against our client, owner of the rental vehicle, pursuant to the Graves Amendment.  (Supreme Court, Queens County, February 2009)

Pre-Deposition Motion for Summary Judgment Granted
Summary judgment granted to defendant-contractor who performed water main work on street where plaintiff alleged a road defect caused his motorcycle accident.  The court held that our client made a prima facie showing that its work did not extend to the area where plaintiff’s accident occurred and that plaintiff’s speculation to the contrary was insufficient.  (Supreme Court, New York County, February 2009). 

Defense Verdict
Defense verdict granted to client/tractor-trailer operator whose tractor collided with the left side of another vehicle.  The plaintiff was a passenger in the other vehicle and alleged severe injuries resulting in spinal surgery.  It was alleged that our client attempted an improper lane change. The jury was unanimous in its verdict that our client was not negligent. (Supreme Court, Rockland County, January 2009)

Labor Law case Dismissed
The plaintiff sustained severe injuries when he fell from a ladder at our client’s building under construction.  Plaintiff asserted claims under Labor Law §§ 240(1), 241(6), 200 and for common-law negligence.  In our motion for summary judgment, we argued that plaintiff’s height-related work was completed prior to the accident; plaintiff was not engaged in construction at the time of the accident; and our client had no notice of the allegedly defective ladder that plaintiff retrieved from a junk pile.  The court agreed and dismissed plaintiff’s complaint as a matter of law.  (Supreme Court, Nassau County, January 2009)

Dismissal Granted on Emergency Doctrine
Summary judgment granted in favor of client involved in a multi-vehicle accident wherein another vehicle was thrust in front of our client just prior to the collision.  The court agreed with our argument that our client was not negligent, but was instead faced with a sudden, emergency situation and acted reasonably. (Supreme Court, Queens County)

Million Dollar lost earnings claim withdrawn after Immigration inquiry
Plaintiff, an illegal alien, commenced a personal injury action against our client as a result of a construction-related accident.  Plaintiff alleged severe injuries in addition to a multi-million dollar lost earnings claim.  The lost earnings claim was withdrawn after our extensive inquiry into plaintiff’s immigration status revealed, among other things, that plaintiff was facing possible deportation.  (Supreme Court, Suffolk County)

Coverage Issue Resolved in Client’s Favor
Petitioners argued that tractor involved in accident was insured by our client.  Petitioners claimed that although the tractor was deleted from the commercial trucking policy, coverage existed pursuant to a mandatory MCS-90 endorsement required of interstate truckers.  We successfully argued that the Federal Regulations do not obligate insurance companies to provide the endorsement without a request absent a special relationship between the agent and the customer.  (Supreme Court, Suffolk County)

Threshold Motion Granted
Plaintiff submitted sworn Affirmations of four physicians in opposition to motion for summary judgment pursuant to Insurance Law § 5102(d).  The Court agreed with our argument that two of the physician’s Affirmations were inadmissible and found that the remainder of plaintiff’s opposition papers was insufficient to establish a serious, permanent injury. (Supreme Court, Nassau County)

Labor Law Case Dismissed
Plaintiff slipped on debris on a job site and cut through his kneecap with a circular saw.   Plaintiff alleged that our client, the property owner, violated Labor Law § 241(6) by not providing a safe place, such as a work bench, for plaintiff to work.  The court held that the defendants did not violate any Industrial Code provision and, accordingly, dismissed plaintiff’s complaint.  (Supreme Court, Queens County)

Pipe Installer’s Motion for Summary Judgment Granted
Motion for summary judgment dismissal granted to our client, a pipe installer, where plaintiff laborer was scalded by pipe and fell from scissor lift.  The court agreed that our client was not negligent or in violation of New York’s Labor Law as a matter of law.   (Supreme Court, New York County)

Summary Judgment Dismissal of Carbon Monoxide Poisoning Claim Affirmed
Plaintiff claimed serious injuries as a result of a carbon monoxide leaking from hot water boiler in the basement of our client’s commercial premises.  We argued that the boiler was the tenant’s responsibility and, in any event, our client had no notice of any problems with the boiler.  The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed the order of the trial court dismissing the case, agreeing that our client was free from negligence as a matter of law. (Appellate Division, Second Department)

Motion to Dismiss Labor Law Claims Granted
Plaintiff, a construction worker, fell from an extension ladder while installing a garage door at our client’s parking garage.  In denying plaintiff’s motion for liability under Labor Law § 240(1), the court agreed with our argument that questions of fact existed as to whether plaintiff’s own negligence was the sole proximate cause of his injuries. The court granted our cross-motion to dismiss the balance of plaintiff’s Labor Law and common law negligence claims.  (Supreme Court, Bronx County)

Summary Judgment Granted in Slip and Fall on Ice
Salon customer slipped and fell on ice on our client’s property.  Plaintiff submitted an Affidavit from a former salon employee stating that the ice existed for five days prior to the accident.  The court agreed that the Affidavit could not be considered because plaintiff’s counsel had failed to provide the witness’s last known address to defense counsel.  As a result, plaintiff could not establish that defendant had notice of the icy condition and her complaint was dismissed.  (Supreme Court, Nassau County)

Declaratory Judgment Action Dismissed
 In an action for insurance coverage, our motion to dismiss in lieu of an answer was granted on behalf of our client/insurance company.  The court agreed that the plaintiff did not have standing to commence the action. (Supreme Court, Queens County)

Commercial Client Represented in Contract involving U.S. Open
Our client contracted with the United States Tennis Association to sell and service the mobile modular trailer units that will comprise the Broadcast Village at the 2008 United States Open in Flushing, New York.  The Broadcast Village is the onsite location from which journalists and media from across the globe assemble to cover the event.  We negotiated with the USTA and counseled our client with respect to this multimillion dollar deal. 

Summary Judgment Granted in Trip and Fall at Beach
Plaintiff tripped and fell over concrete buried in the sand at a local beach club. Our client, a contractor who constructed concrete sidewalks at the club, adamantly denied that it dumped concrete in the sand. The court granted our motion for summary judgment dismissal and held that our client established, prima facie, that it did not create the condition. (Supreme Court, Nassau County)

Settlement Agreement Upheld as Binding; Lawsuit Dismissed
Our motion to enforce settlement was granted where plaintiff’s former counsel executed a settlement agreement before the action was commenced.  The court agreed that plaintiff’s former counsel, having appeared in court and at mediation, had authority to bind plaintiff to the agreement despite plaintiff’s claims to the contrary. (Supreme Court, Queens County)

Construction Accident Leading to Total Disability Defended at Trial
Plaintiff tripped and fell at a construction site, leading to his total disability.  The case settled for a nominal figure after the jury found plaintiff 85% responsible for his own accident.  (Supreme Court, Nassau County)

Defense Verdict, twice; Affirmed on Appeal
At first trial, jury found that negligence of client with stop sign was not a substantial factor in causing the accident.  Plaintiff was granted a second trial that resulted in a jury verdict that our client was not negligent.  The verdict was affirmed on appeal (Supreme Court, Suffolk County, April 2007; Appellate Division, Second Department)

Insured’s First-Party Action Against Insurance Company Dismissed
Insured sued our client/insurance company for difference between amount charged by body shop for repairs to her vehicle and amount paid by insurance company.  Following trial, the insured’s suit was dismissed as a result of her failure to comply with UCC provisions requiring endorser of check to explicitly reserve right to seek additional sums from check issuer.  (District Court, Suffolk County)

Electrician’s Labor Law Claims Dismissed
Electrician fell from an eight-foot A-frame ladder while removing an exterior sign from our client’s premises.  The court agreed that plaintiff was engaged in routine maintenance, and not construction or alteration of a structure, as defined by the Labor Law.  Accordingly, the court dismissed all claims against our client. (Supreme Court, Suffolk County)

Appeal Granted; Case Dismissed against Handrail Installer
Appellate Court reversed trial court’s decision and dismissed action against our client contractor as a matter of law.  Our client, the installer of a handrail, faced significant exposure in this personal injury action.  The Appellate Court, however, agreed with our position that certain repairs by the building’s maintenance staff constituted intervening, superseding acts breaking any causal connection between our client’s alleged conduct and the plaintiff’s injuries.  (Appellate Division, First Department)

Summary Judgment on Liability Granted in Case Involving Seven Car Pileup
Plaintiffs in the sixth vehicle claimed that our client/driver caused the accident by rear-ending the first vehicle. We elicited deposition testimony from the operator of the first vehicle that she was lost, scared, and was on her way home from a night out in Manhattan. The court agreed with our arguments that our client was not negligent and, in any event, that the chain of causation between our client’s actions and the injuries sustained by the passengers in the sixth vehicle was twice broken by vehicles three and five who were able to stop safely without incident. (NJ Superior Court, Union County)

Summary Judgment Granted in Slip and Fall on Bathmat Alleged to be Defective
Our client, a hotel operator, was granted summary judgment dismissal of hotel patron’s slip and fall/products liability action involving an allegedly defective bathmat placed on a ceramic tile floor. (Supreme Court, New York County)

Summary Judgment “Threshold” Motion Granted
Plaintiff claimed serious neck and shoulder injuries as a result of a motor vehicle accident with our client.  We moved for summary judgment on the grounds that plaintiff did not sustain “serious injury” as defined by Insurance Law § 5102(d).  Although plaintiff submitted an affirmation from his treating physician, he could not overcome an unexplained 28-month gap in treatment.  Motion granted; Cased dismissed.  (Supreme Court, Suffolk County)  

Defense Verdict; Affirmed on Appeal
Building owner granted defense verdict at trial in multi-million dollar personal injury claim proved to be staged. (Supreme Court, Queens County, Appellate Division, Second Department)

Contractual Indemnification Granted in Labor Law Case
Client/owner of property where construction accident occurred was granted summary judgment on its claim for contractual indemnification against plaintiff’s employer.  The court agreed that our client was free from negligence, that the accident occurred in the course of plaintiff’s work, and that the indemnification provision was triggered as a matter of law. (Supreme Court, Suffolk County)

Negligent Property Design Case Dismissed
In pedestrian knockdown case, our client, a resort, was granted summary judgment dismissal of a third-party action that alleged defective design/layout of the parking lot and walkways.  (Supreme Court, Kings County)

Defense Verdict in Motor Vehicle Case
Defense verdict granted to clients, car rental company and renter/driver. The plaintiff was a passenger in the co-defendant’s minimally-insured vehicle and sustained severe injuries. Our clients faced significant exposure if found just 1% at fault.  (Supreme Court, Queens County)

Defense Verdict in Labor Law Case
Defense verdict granted to client/contractor in a trip and fall construction accident involving claims of negligence and violations of New York’s Labor Law.  We proved that our client was not responsible for the dangerous condition at the jobsite. (Supreme Court, Queens County)

Defense Verdict
Defense verdict granted to client in high-exposure motor vehicle case involving severe permanent injuries and a question as to which driver had the right of way.  (Supreme Court, Suffolk County,)

Contact us today about your legal matter.