• Clear All
  • Plaintiff’s Negligence was Sole Cause of Accident

    We represented the owner and operator of a supermarket with a loading dock in the rear. The plaintiff delivery driver sustained knee injuries requiring surgery when he attempted to rappel down from the loading dock by using a cable hanging from the building. He commenced a lawsuit against our client alleging our client was negligent in failing to provide a safe means of egress from the loading dock. After the depositions, we filed a motion for summary seeking an order dismissing plaintiff’s complaint as a matter of law. We argued that our client was not negligent, had no notice of any dangers posed by the cable, and that plaintiff’s act of negligence in grabbing the cable and rappelling down from the loading dock was the sole proximate cause of his injuries. The court agreed and found that even if our client was negligent regarding the cable that plaintiff’s intervening act of negligence was a superseding and sole cause of the accident. Case Dismissed!
    (Supreme Court, Suffolk County, October 2021)

  • Summary Judgment Dismissal of Wrongful Death Labor Law Action.

    Plaintiff’s decedent, a construction worker, fell to his death from an allegedly defective pipe scaffold. Our client supplied and supervised the installation of the scaffold. On motion at the conclusion of discovery, we established that our client was free from negligence as a matter of law. We proved that the scaffold was initially built in accordance with approved plans, and that the alleged defect - an unguarded area of the scaffold - was created by the decedent’s employer during unauthorized subsequent modifications it made to accommodate the work. Case dismissed! (Supreme Court, New York County, December 2018)

  • Defense Verdict in Bronx County Labor Law Trial!

    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).

  • Labor Law § 240(1) Determination Reversed on Appeal
    Plaintiff, a demolition worker, claimed that she was injured when the floor that she was working on collapsed from underneath her. The Kings County motion court granted plaintiff summary judgment under Labor Law § 240(1).
    On appeal, we argued that the plaintiff’s actions in disregarding warnings from her supervisor to avoid certain parts of the floor created a question of fact as to whether plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of her own accident. The Appellate Division, Second Department agreed with our argument and reversed the motion court’s award of summary judgment. (Appellate Division, Second Department, March 2013).
  • Denial of Summary Judgment Reversed on Appeal – Case Dismissed!

    Plaintiff, an employee of our commercial tenant, sustained severe injuries, including fractures and tears to his left ankle, left knee and left shoulder, and underwent four surgeries, as the result of a slip and fall on fish skin on the sidewalk of our client’s market. Plaintiff sued the sanitation company hired by our client and the landlord who, in turn, commenced a third-party action against our client for indemnification pursuant to our client’s lease. The lease required our client to indemnify the landlord for injuries arising out of any acts or omissions of our client or its agents. The Bronx Supreme Court denied our motion summary judgment, finding that our client caused the condition. We appealed this decision. In reversing the Bronx Court decision and dismissing the third-party complaint against our client, the Appellate Division, First Department, agreed there was no evidence that our client caused the fish skin to be on the sidewalk. The evidence instead suggested the fish skin fell to the sidewalk during the co-defendant’s garbage pick-up just moments before plaintiff’s accident. Another successful result in a high exposure slip and fall case!
    (Appellate Division, First Department, November 2021)

  • Summary Judgment on Liability in Thirty Two Vehicle Pile Up Accident

    Plaintiffs in three consolidated personal injury actions stemming from a 32 vehicle pileup accident on an overpass on the Bronx River Parkway sued all vehicles involved. The various plaintiffs alleged severe serious injuries as a result. Through the use of party testimony and accident scene photographs, we obtained dismissal of all three personal injury actions against our clients by establishing that our clients’ vehicle was located ahead of all three plaintiffs’ vehicles. As well, we showed that no parties or witnesses identified our clients’ vehicle as causing or contributing to the groupings of accidents that culminated in the pile-up of 32 vehicles. (Supreme Court, Westchester County June 2018)

  • Case Dismissed on Threshold Injury Grounds at Arbitration

    Arbitration won in a multi-car collision, where plaintiff claimed major spinal injury. Representing the defendant, we demonstrated that plaintiff did not sustain a proximately caused “serious injury,” as defined by the New York State Insurance Law, as a result of the collision. Result: $0 awarded to the plaintiff. To so demonstrate, we choose well-qualified medical experts to conduct and author reports explaining that all of plaintiff’s symptoms arose out of prior conditions.

    In addition, we defeated the plaintiff’s petition to the court to modify the arbitrator’s award, resulting in the Court wholly adopting our legal brief’s argument into the Decision and Order. (Supreme Court, Queens County May 2018)

  • Defense Verdict for Property Owner in Slip and Fall on Snow and Ice

    Our client, owner, and operator of a bungalow colony located in Upstate New York found by a Queens County jury to have acted reasonably under the circumstances in maintaining the property after the trial. The bungalow colony, a several acre facility, operates only in the summer months. Plaintiff was picking up the sole caretaker for the property charged with safeguarding it during the winter months from trespassers. The caretaker was not tasked with maintaining the property. Plaintiff slipped on snow and ice located in the walkway leading up to the bungalow the caretaker was staying in. (Supreme Court, Queens County August 2018)

  • Commercial Space Operator Granted Dismissal in Fall Down Stairs

    Plaintiff fell down a flight of stairs alleging that both a bucket located on stairs caused his fall and that the stairs were in violation of 2014 New York City Building. Our client, commercial property operator awarded summary judgment dismissal. The Court agreed that our client met their burden of establishing that they did not create or have notice of a dangerous condition. The Court further agreed with defendant’s argument that it is mere speculation that plaintiff’s trip and fall was the result of the red bucket as opposed to a miss-step or loss of balance. (Supreme Court, Kings County June 2018)

1 / 25