Our Results

Cascone & Kluepfel, LLP is proud of our track record of success in all areas of liability defense. Select a categoy below to view some of our results.

Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Summary Judgment for Property Owner in Trip and Fall

Client, municipal property owner, granted summary judgment dismissal on a trip and fall claim on a concrete bulkhead at a marina. We demonstrated the following: our client installed a concrete bulkhead with expansion control joints running through the bulkhead down into the adjacent sidewalk, that, unsurprisingly, the Town never received any requisite notice of a defect involving any of the expansion control joint gaps, and that these expansion control joint gaps did not create an immediately dangerous condition. Finally, the court agreed with our argument that plaintiff’s opposition comprised only inadmissible conjecture and personal preferences of an expert rather than the requisite, admissible opinion of a violation of any specific building or safety standards. (Supreme Court, Nassau County, September 2017)

Summary Judgment for “Middle Car” in Three-car Chain Collision


Our client, stopped behind plaintiff’s host vechile at a red traffic light, was rear-ended and pushed into the lead host vehicle. The motion Court properly found that our client established its burden, through the introduction of testimony as to the number of impacts felt by plaintiff and prevailing traffic conditions, that defendant was free from negligence in the three-car accident.

(Supreme Court, Kings County, July 2017)

All Claims Dismissed against Homeowner’s Association in Trip and Fall

Homeowner’s Association granted summary judgment based on lack of ownership, control, and maintenance of private sidewalk plaintiff alleged to have tripped over. Plaintiff was walking out of his basement apartment rented from homeowner who was a member of Homeowner’s Association which is part of a 21 home private development in Staten Island, New York. Homeowner commenced third-party action against HOA, as well as plaintiff bringing direct claims against HOA. Through the submission of deposition testimony, HOA bylaws, subsequent repair invoices, and a land survey it was successfully shown that the HOA’s maintenance responsibilities did not extent to this private sidewalk in front of the residential home.

(Supreme Court, Richmond County, May 2017)

Snow Removal Contractor Granted Summary Judgment


Snow removal contractor for large commercial shopping plaza was granted summary judgment dismissal underEspinal Doctrine, by establishing the snow removal contract was not

an exclusive and comprehensive agreement to maintain the property; plaintiff did not detrimentally rely on the contract; and that the snow removal contractor did not launch an instrument of harm. We were also successful in having plaintiff’s claims against property owner dismissed on lack of notice. Plaintiff’s claims and all third-party claims asserted by property owner were dismissed in a lengthy and through decision by the Court.

(Supreme Court, Suffolk County, May 2017)

Summary Judgment for Snow Removal Contractor

Summary judgment granted to our client, third-party defendant snow removal contractor in a slip and fall on ice claim. We demonstrated the following: our client’s contract only obligated them to appear and remove snow/ice with 2” accumulation, that there was no such accumulation at or about the time of the accident, and that the property owner admitted that our client never failed to perform its snow/ice removal duties under the contract. Finally, the court agreed with our argument that third-party plaintiff’s allegations that our client somehow created or exacerbated the particular ice condition involved in the accident was speculation only. (Supreme Court, Bronx County, May 2017)

Defense Verdict in Damages Trial Affirmed by Appellate Division, Second Department


Plaintiff alleged a traumatic brain injury as the result of being struck as a pedestrian by a vehicle owned and operated by our client. Through numerous experts and witnesses, Plaintiff attempted to prove that she suffered from severe cognitive deficits as a result her alleged traumatic brain injury. The jury returned a defense verdict dismissing the action on the ground that plaintiff did not sustain a “serious injury” as defined by Insurance Law 5102(d). On Plaintiff’s appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed our defense verdict. It found, among other things, that our motion to limit the testimony of plaintiff’s expert Neuropsychiatrist - retained solely for trial - was properly granted. The Court noted that a medical expert may give an opinion concerning an examination of plaintiff, but, in the absence of treatment, cannot testify concerning the history of the accident as related by plaintiff, or about plaintiff’s subjective medical complaints. The Court further found that the jury’s finding was not against the weight of the evidence so as to justify a new trial. Defense verdict affirmed! (Appellate Division, Second Department, April 2017)

162 results found. Viewing page 1 of 27. Go to page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7  . . . 23 24 25 26 27   Next