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: |
|
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).
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).
Labor Law Claims Dismissed against Property Owner
4/13/2020
Our client, a Trust, owned a large property that included four parcels
and contained multiple buildings. The Trust contracted with a general
contractor to renovate the upstairs bedrooms and an exterior patio/terrace
of the main house. The plaintiff, an employee of the general contractor,
climbed an A-frame ladder to clean off cement that had splattered onto
the glass of a greenhouse connected to the main house. While performing
his work, the ladder wobbled causing plaintiff to fall through the greenhouse
glass and onto the greenhouse floor. Plaintiff sued our client, asserting
causes of action under Labor Law §§240, 241 and 200/negligence.
After the depositions, we filed a motion for summary judgement seeking
the dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint, arguing that our client
was entitled to the “homeowner’s exemption” to liability
under the Labor Law. The court agreed and dismissed the claims under Labor
Law §§240, 241 outright. The court also dismissed the 200/negligence
claim, finding that the greenhouse was code-compliant and otherwise free
from defects as a matter of law.
(Suffolk County Supreme Court, December 2019)
Slip and Fall Case Dismissed against Client Contractor
4/13/2020
Plaintiff, a night-time security guard, slipped and fell on oil and water
on the basement floor of a High School during his nightly rounds. The
oil was alleged to have leaked from the boilers and the water was dripping
from pipes. He sued all contractors involved with the boilers and pipes,
including our client, a Duct Cleaning Company who performed annual cleaning
of the boiler’s exhaust and ductwork for the school district. In
our motion for dismissal, we established that the leak emanated from inside
the boiler, the repair of which was outside the scope of our client’s
work. Further, our client notified the school of the leak at the start
of its work, and finished its work after the leak was repaired. The court
agreed that our client had no duty with respect to the water leak, and
was not otherwise responsible for the oil and water condition that caused
plaintiff’s fall. All claims and cross-claims were dismissed against
our client as a matter of law.
(Suffolk County Supreme Court, August 2019).
Labor Law Claims Dismissed against Property Owner
4/13/2020
Our client, a Trust, owned a large property that included four parcels
and contained multiple buildings. The Trust contracted with a general
contractor to renovate the upstairs bedrooms and an exterior patio/terrace
of the main house. The plaintiff, an employee of the general contractor,
climbed an A-frame ladder to clean off cement that had splattered onto
the glass of a greenhouse connected to the main house. While performing
his work, the ladder wobbled causing plaintiff to fall through the greenhouse
glass and onto the greenhouse floor. Plaintiff sued our client, asserting
causes of action under Labor Law §§240, 241 and 200/negligence.
After the depositions, we filed a motion for summary judgement seeking
the dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint, arguing that our client
was entitled to the “homeowner’s exemption” to liability
under the Labor Law. The court agreed and dismissed the claims under Labor
Law §§240, 241 outright. The court also dismissed the 200/negligence
claim, finding that the greenhouse was code-compliant and otherwise free
from defects as a matter of law.
(Suffolk County Supreme Court, December 2019)
203 results found. Viewing page 1 of 34.
Go to page . . .