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
Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
|Filter by Category:
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
(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 . . .