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.

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. Defense Verdict! (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 ยง240(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 1 2 3 4 5 6 7  . . . 21 22 23 24 25   Next