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:
Defense Verdict on Causation for David Kluepfel in Bronx County
Plaintiff (48) claimed to have sustained a permanent traumatic brain injury
and cervical herniations that resulted in cervical laminectomy and fusion
surgery when a ceiling collapsed in her bathroom. We represented the defendant,
Bronx building owner, and argued that the case was a total exaggeration
– from the description of the incident to the claimed injuries,
none of which were sustained in the incident. Through aggressive cross-examination
of plaintiff’s doctors and witnesses and through the testimony we
attacked causation. We established that plaintiff did not sustain trauma
to her head, neck, or back, and that there was no objective evidence of
any head or brain injury whatsoever. Plaintiff’s claimed neck and
back injuries were the result of pre-existing, degenerative conditions
throughout her spine.
In the end, while the jury found our client was negligent, it agreed that
our client's negligence was not a cause of plaintiff's claimed
injuries. The Bronx jury returned a defense verdict on causation!
(Supreme Court, Bronx County; May 2023)
Counterclaims Dismissed against Client Driver via Summary Judgment Motion
Plaintiff and his wife were seriously injured in a significant two-car
accident, when an SUV made a left tun front of their vehicle. We represented
plaintiff on the counterclaims asserted by defendant, as the driver of
the host vehicle. His wife’s injuries consisted of multiple fractured
ribs, broken teeth, and numerous cervical and lumbar herniations. On dispositive
motion seeking to dismiss the counterclaims, we successfully argued that
the SUV’s left turn was sudden and without warning, leaving our
client with no time to react. This was supported by the subpoenaed testimony
of an independent non-party witness, who we located via an investigator,
stating that the driver of the offending SUV was unable to view oncoming
traffic prior to attempting a left-hand turn into an parking lot. Our
motion was further supported by a certified police report and strong testimony
from our client.
The Court found that , we successfully satisfied our burden on motion that
our client was not negligent, and defendant failed to raise a trial issue
of fact. Motion granted! All counterclaims against our client were dismissed!
(Suffolk County, Supreme Court, March 2023)
Defense Verdict in Premises Case
Following trial in Supreme Court, Queens County, Richard Calabrese obtained
a defense verdict on a premises case. Our client is a parking garage operator
located in Jackson Heights, Queens. Plaintiff testified that upon returning
to the parking lot to retrieve his vehicle, the lot and sliding gate was
closed, the lights shut, and the parking attended gone. Plaintiff then
attempted to open the sliding gate himself when it fell onto him, crushing
him and fracturing his leg and injuring his shoulder. At trial, we produced
employment records, the parking garage owner, and the parking lot attendant
working that evening who testified no such incident transpired, nor did
defendants have any notice of any defect with the gate. Following deliberations
the jury found that plaintiff did not have an accident involving the gate
at our client’s property.
(Supreme Court, Queens County, March 2023)
Property Owner Granted Summary Judgement
In trip and fall case occurring on a walkway in our client’s parking
lot, we prevailed on our motion for summary judgment dismissing all claims
and cross-claims against the property owner. Through testimony and documentary
records we established that our client was an out-of-possession landlord;
that our client’s one time repair to the walkway several years prior
was not a course of conduct counter to lease terms with tenant in possession
(co-defendant). The Court agreed we met out prima facia burden. Plaintiff
failed to raise a trial issue of fact as to the landlord’s obligation.
Case dismissed against property owner!
(Suffolk County, Supreme Court, January 2023)
All Claims Dismissed Against Shopping Center Owner
In a very unfortunate incident in our client’s shopping center parking
lot, a highly intoxicated man, swearing under oath to having been specifically
retained to serve as security for the shopping center by our client’s
principal, ran over the 14-year-old plaintiff while he was skateboarding.
The infant plaintiff sustained severe injuries including multiple skull
and facial fractures with a traumatic brain injury with the need to be
placed in a medically induced coma for nearly three weeks; a collapsed
lung; bilateral clavicle fractures; multiple rib fractures; bilateral
hip fractures; bilateral comminuted displaced femur fractures; tear of
the colon; the need to undergo seven emergency surgeries; the development
of a pulmonary embolism; and resulting PTSD, bipolar disorder, anxiety,
and panic attacks.
The intoxicated driver was a homeless man in the neighborhood well-known
to local residents to frequent and live behind our client’s commercial
property, among others. It was asserted he was in the course of his employment
when the incident occurred, which was vehemently denied by our clients.
The claims against our client, in pertinent part, included; negligent hiring/retention
of services of the driver, failure to provide security at the premises,
and failing to take reasonable measures to prevent the foreseeable criminal
act of a third-party.
We successfully satisfied our burden on summary judgment motion, supported
by party and extensive non-party testimony, certified police records,
photographs, and voluminous citation to the record evidence that, among
other things; 1) our clients had no connection to the vehicle the intoxicated
man was driving; 2) he was not under the owner’s employ, nor did
the owner “retain his services” asking him to work security
(we also argued that even if the Court were to find a question of fact
as to any relationship between the operator and the property owner, that
the drunkard’s actions that evening were so far beyond the scope
of employment that no liability could attach), and; 3) the owner had no
knowledge as to the operator’s violent propensities, or any similar
prior acts and therefore this was not a foreseeable criminal act our client
could of or should have guarded against. Plaintiff failed to raise a question
of a material fact for a jury to decide. Motion granted! All claims against
the property owner were dismissed.
(Nassau County, Supreme Court, November 2022)
Defense Verdict in Bronx County Labor Law Trial Affirmed on Appeal!
The plaintiff, a window installer, alleged severe knee injuries as the
result of tripping over large piles of construction debris at a new building
under construction in New York City. We represented the owner and general
contractor. In support of his Labor Law 241(6) cause of action, plaintiff
claimed the defendants violated Industrial Code 23-1.7 (e) pertaining
to tripping hazards at work sites. Plaintiff alleged severe injuries to
his knee, including tears that required arthroscopic surgery. He underwent
a partial knee replacement, then a total knee replacement surgery. Plaintiff
claimed he was permanently disabled as a result of his injuries, and sought
a multi-million dollar damages award for his pain and suffering, as well
as for past and future lost wages and medical expenses. Plaintiff presented
testimony from his numerous treating doctors and surgeons, all of whom
testified that his knee injuries were caused by the accident leaving plaintiff
permanently disabled and in need of lifetime medical treatment. Through
aggressive cross-examination of plaintiff’s doctors and experts,
and through testimony of experts on behalf of the defense, we elicited
evidence that plaintiff’s knee condition and surgeries were the
result of a pre-existing osteoarthritic condition in his knee. After weeks
of trial testimony, the jury returned a Defense Verdict - finding that
plaintiff’s injuries were not caused by the accident.
(Bronx Supreme Court, February 2020).
Plaintiff subsequently appealed the verdict arguing, among other things,
that the trial court improperly denied plaintiff’s motion to redact
portions of the hospital records admitted into evidence, namely the history
portion of the initial record that described how his knee was injured.
The Appellate Division, First Department, denied plaintiff’s appeal
finding that the trial court properly denied plaintiff’s belated,
mid-trial motion, and that he waived his hearsay objections when he presented
the records himself and relied upon the documents to support his case
in chief. Defense Verdict Affirmed! (February 2022)
Defense Verdict at Trial on Labor Law §240(1)
Plaintiff, a 48-year-old welder, claimed he was working on a five-foot
scaffold when it shook and caused him to fall to the ground. He claimed
severe and permanent injuries to his back and both knees – rendering
him permanently incapacitated from any type of work. He underwent three
knee surgeries, multiple spinal injections and was recommended for future
lumbar fusion surgery. Plaintiff brought claims against our clients, the
owner and general contractor, under Labor Law § 240(1) on the ground
that the scaffold was unsafe, did not have railings and failed to provide
him proper protection. At trial, through the use of party and non-party
testimony, photographs, and project plans, we established that the scaffold
was not five feet tall and did not require railings under the circumstances.
We also attacked plaintiff’s credibility with different versions
of the accident that he had reported to his Supervisor and medical providers
within weeks after the alleged incident. The jury returned a Defense Verdict
finding no violation of Labor Law § 240(1)!
(Supreme Court, New York County, June 2022)
Dismissal of Labor Law Action Upheld on Appeal
We successfully obtained an affirmance on appeal of a Bronx Decision dismissing
all claims against our client on the ground that, although our client
signed a contract to become the General Contractor BEFORE plaintiff’s
accident, it did not take over the responsibilities of the former General
Contractor until AFTER the accident.
The plaintiff claimed severe injuries when he fell into a construction
trench. Our client was hired to take over as General Contractor three
weeks before plaintiff’s accident, but due to a backlog of work,
did not begin work at the site until after the accident. The Supreme Court,
Bronx County, agreed and dismissed all claims against our client finding
that it was not a “contractor” or “agent of the owner”
for purposes of Labor Law liability at the time of plaintiff’s accident.
On appeal, the plaintiff and owner argued that the Contract imputed our
client with authority over the site as of the date it was signed, and
that this, together with our client’s Mechanic’s Lien seeking
payment as of the Contract date, shows our client was the General Contractor
regardless of when our client first showed up at the site. The Appellate
Division, however, adopted our argument that the Owner’s acknowledgment
that our client did not actually take over as General Contractor until
after the accident precluded liability, and affirmed the Order dismissing
all claims against our client.
(Appellate Division, First Department- March 2022)
Trip and Fall Case Dismissed Against Client, Town
Plaintiff was injured when she stepped in a hole in a road while jogging.
The road is owned and maintained by our municipal client (“Town”).
The plaintiff claimed the hole was the result of a prior negligent repair.
Plaintiff further argued the Town had prior written notice of the hole
through a telephone complaint that was reduced to writing by the Town
six weeks prior to the accident. On motion, we established that while
repairs were made more than two years before the accident, there were
no recent repairs that resulted in an immediate hazard as required to
hold the Town responsible for negligently creating the condition. We also
established through case law that making note of a telephone complaint
does not satisfy the prior written notice requirement to maintain suit
against the Town. In its decision on our motion, the court found that
the Town did not create the hole and did not have prior written notice
of it, and dismissed plaintiff’s complaint against our client as
a matter of law.
(Supreme Court, Suffolk County, January 2022)
219 results found. Viewing page 1 of 25.
Go to page . . .