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.
| Filter by Category: |
|
Big Win for the Defense Bar! – Trial Verdict Dismissing Labor Law §240(1) Claim Affirmed on Appeal!
9/22/2020
Plaintiff, a 44 year-old construction worker, was rolling a 1000 lb. steel
I-beam on the ground using a long “make-shift” pry-bar. The
steel I-beam rolled back, causing the bar to snap out of plaintiff’s
hands and strike him in the face and head. He sustained fractured orbital
bones in his face that required open reduction and internal fixation,
traumatic brain injury with cognitive deficits and memory loss, neck injuries
for which he underwent cervical discectomy and fusion at C3-4, and back
injuries for which he had a double laminectomy and fusion at L3-4 and
L4-5. Plaintiff claimed he was permanently disabled from employment and
sought past and future lost wages in the amount of $1.5 million; past
medical expenses of $550,000, and; future medical expenses in the amount
$3 million.
Our involvement in this case began when the insurance carrier for the defendant
site owner called upon us for a second opinion after former counsel recommended
tendering the policy limits to settle the case. We opined that Labor Law
§240(1) was not triggered under these facts, and the case was transferred
to our firm to defend at trial.
The jury trial was held before Judge Robert J. McDonald in Supreme Queens.
At the close of the plaintiff’s case, our firm moved for a directed
verdict. We argued that §240(1) contemplated vertical motion and
to allow this case to proceed under §240(1) would wrongly expand
the findings of
Runner and
Wilinski and further undermine the purpose of Labor Law §240(1). After hearing
from both sides, Judge McDonald agreed, granted our motion and dismissed
plaintiff’s case as a matter of law. Plaintiff appealed.
On appeal, by unanimous decision, the Appellate Division, Second Department,
affirmed the directed verdict agreeing that the case did not involve the
kind of elevation-related risk contemplated by Labor Law §240(1).
The court found that plaintiff and the steel beam he was rotating were
both at ground level and did not call for the use of the protective devices
mentioned in the statute. This case presents a shining example of the
CK Difference!
(Appellate Division, Second Department September 2020).
Big Win for the Defense Bar! – Trial Verdict Dismissing Labor Law §240(1) Claim Affirmed on Appeal!
9/22/2020
Plaintiff, a 44 year-old construction worker, was rolling a 1000 lb. steel
I-beam on the ground using a long “make-shift” pry-bar. The
steel I-beam rolled back, causing the bar to snap out of plaintiff’s
hands and strike him in the face and head. He sustained fractured orbital
bones in his face that required open reduction and internal fixation,
traumatic brain injury with cognitive deficits and memory loss, neck injuries
for which he underwent cervical discectomy and fusion at C3-4, and back
injuries for which he had a double laminectomy and fusion at L3-4 and
L4-5. Plaintiff claimed he was permanently disabled from employment and
sought past and future lost wages in the amount of $1.5 million; past
medical expenses of $550,000, and; future medical expenses in the amount
$3 million.
Our involvement in this case began when the insurance carrier for the defendant
site owner called upon us for a second opinion after former counsel recommended
tendering the policy limits to settle the case. We opined that Labor Law
§240(1) was not triggered under these facts, and the case was transferred
to our firm to defend at trial.
The jury trial was held before Judge Robert J. McDonald in Supreme Queens.
At the close of the plaintiff’s case, our firm moved for a directed
verdict. We argued that §240(1) contemplated vertical motion and
to allow this case to proceed under §240(1) would wrongly expand
the findings of
Runner and
Wilinski and further undermine the purpose of Labor Law §240(1). After hearing
from both sides, Judge McDonald agreed, granted our motion and dismissed
plaintiff’s case as a matter of law. Plaintiff appealed.
On appeal, by unanimous decision, the Appellate Division, Second Department,
affirmed the directed verdict agreeing that the case did not involve the
kind of elevation-related risk contemplated by Labor Law §240(1).
The court found that plaintiff and the steel beam he was rotating were
both at ground level and did not call for the use of the protective devices
mentioned in the statute. This case presents a shining example of the
CK Difference!
(Appellate Division, Second Department September 2020).
Big Win for the Defense Bar! – Trial Verdict Dismissing Labor Law §240(1) Claim Affirmed on Appeal!
9/22/2020
Plaintiff, a 44 year-old construction worker, was rolling a 1000 lb. steel
I-beam on the ground using a long “make-shift” pry-bar. The
steel I-beam rolled back, causing the bar to snap out of plaintiff’s
hands and strike him in the face and head. He sustained fractured orbital
bones in his face that required open reduction and internal fixation,
traumatic brain injury with cognitive deficits and memory loss, neck injuries
for which he underwent cervical discectomy and fusion at C3-4, and back
injuries for which he had a double laminectomy and fusion at L3-4 and
L4-5. Plaintiff claimed he was permanently disabled from employment and
sought past and future lost wages in the amount of $1.5 million; past
medical expenses of $550,000, and; future medical expenses in the amount
$3 million.
Our involvement in this case began when the insurance carrier for the defendant
site owner called upon us for a second opinion after former counsel recommended
tendering the policy limits to settle the case. We opined that Labor Law
§240(1) was not triggered under these facts, and the case was transferred
to our firm to defend at trial.
The jury trial was held before Judge Robert J. McDonald in Supreme Queens.
At the close of the plaintiff’s case, our firm moved for a directed
verdict. We argued that §240(1) contemplated vertical motion and
to allow this case to proceed under §240(1) would wrongly expand
the findings of
Runner and
Wilinski and further undermine the purpose of Labor Law §240(1). After hearing
from both sides, Judge McDonald agreed, granted our motion and dismissed
plaintiff’s case as a matter of law. Plaintiff appealed.
On appeal, by unanimous decision, the Appellate Division, Second Department,
affirmed the directed verdict agreeing that the case did not involve the
kind of elevation-related risk contemplated by Labor Law §240(1).
The court found that plaintiff and the steel beam he was rotating were
both at ground level and did not call for the use of the protective devices
mentioned in the statute. This case presents a shining example of the
CK Difference!
(Appellate Division, Second Department September 2020).
MVA Case Dismissed against Client Contractor
9/15/2020
Plaintiff sustained severe injuries when he was rear-ended by a work van
operated by the co-defendant/driver. Plaintiff alleged the driver was
in the course of his employment by our client and/or that our client owned
and controlled the work van because our client’s name appeared on
the side of the van. Through deposition testimony, work logs, title and
insurance documentation, we established that our client neither employed
the driver nor owned the van. The Court accepted our proof and dismissed
the case against our client as a matter of law.
(Suffolk County, August 2020).
Summary Judgment Dismissal of Dog Bite Case
6/1/2020
Plaintiff was bitten by a dog while visiting a tenant in a building owned
personally by our client’s principal. Our client was awarded summary
judgment dismissal of all claims. We demonstrated that our corporate client
did not own or lease the premises, did not have a duty to maintain the
premises, and, therefore, owed no duty to the plaintiff regarding the
subject dog. Case dismissed!
(Bronx County, June 2020).
Labor Law §240(1), 241(6), 200 claims Dismissed on Motion
5/1/2020
Plaintiff, an employee of an HVAC contractor, while installing ductwork
stepped into a hole cut into the basement by the masonry subcontractor.
Plaintiff sued the general contractor, and our client, the plumbing subcontractor
alleging violations of Labor Law Secs. 240(1), 241(6), 200, and common
law negligence. The hole was intended to house a pump, to have been installed
by our client at a later date.
The Court dismissed the complaint, and all cross claims, against our client,
granting our summary judgment motion. We successfully argued that our
client was not a proper labor law defendant and, under the facts of this
case, owed no duty to plaintiff such that it cannot be liable under common
law negligence. The Court agreed, holding that our client did not exercise,
nor was it granted, supervisory authority over the work site or plaintiff’s
work, such that it was not an ‘owner, contractor, or agent’
subject to labor law liability. On the issue of common law negligence,
the Court again agreed, holding that our client owed no duty to plaintiff,
as it did not create the condition or ‘launch a force of harm’
by making the condition more dangerous.
(Suffolk County, May 2020).
207 results found. Viewing page 1 of 35.
Go to page . . .