Results

Lev v. East Meadow School District

Allstate Insurance Company a/s/o Siemaszko and James Smith v. Rheem

Frank Cecere and Ken Danielsen recently obtained summary judgment on behalf of one of the largest manufacturers of heating and cooling systems in the United States in a complex products liability - subrogation claim venued in the Supreme Court of Nassau County.

The plaintiff alleged that the manufacturer negligently designed the safety shut-off system of a widely used furnace system and that this negligent design caused a substantial residential fire in the East end of Long Island.

On the motion for summary judgment, the firm successfully argued that the HVAC system, as designed and install, was inappropriate for the particular furnace at issue in the lawsuit and that it was this deviation from the intended use of the furnace that led to the subject fire, not a defect in the design of the furnace's safety shut-off system (which conformed to all industry standards).

Ahmuty, Demers & McManus further argued that subsequent repairs made to the furnace's safety shut-off system by an outside contractor, particularly, the replacement of OEM parts with non-approved parts, alleviated the original manufacturer of any liability.

In rendering it decision on the eve of trial, the Court found both arguments persuasive and therefore agreed that the granting of summary judgment was appropriate.  (March 2010)

Smith v. Shipman

Conway v. East Meadow Union Free School District

Koeppel v. Stop and Shop Supermarket Company, LLC

Gill v. East Williston Little League

The plaintiff was attending an East Williston Little League game at a field owned by the County of Nassau and maintained by the Town of North Hempstead when the plaintiff stepped backwards and was caused to trip and fall on an opened manhole cover causing personal injury.  The plaintiff brought suit in Nassau County as against the County of Nassau, Town of North Hempstead and our client East Williston Little League.  Jennifer Casey made a motion for summary judgment on behalf of our client which was granted.  The Court found that we proved that the Little League did not have any proprietary interest in the ballfield, had no legal obligation to maintain the property and did not assume any maintenance obligation either authorized or unauthorized.  We also showed that the Little League was not the exclusive user of the property and performed no function which would have created the dangerous condition.  (December 2009)            

Binshteyn v. 45th Housing Company

This case involved a fall by a 60 year-old woman in the parking lot of a senior housing apartment building owned and operated by our client.  The plaintiff had been a home health attendant for an elderly tenant living in the building for five years, although she claimed she rarely used the area where the fall occurred. As the plaintiff was entering the building, she stepped on the tapered end of a concrete curb between a parking space and a walkway leading into the building. She claimed that a parked car blocked her view of the curb. The plaintiff's expert opined that the curb served no purpose and the fact that it was the same light gray color and texture as the walkway caused the plaintiff not to have visual cues of its presence. Our engineer testified that the curb was readily visible by virtue of its contrast with the adjacent black asphalt and that it served as a physical barrier to protect pedestrians on the walkway from errant parking vehicles. He pointed out many tire marks on the curb as evidence of its utility in this respect. No code violations were claimed by plaintiff, however, Judge Duane Hart would not permit our engineer to testify that our expert found no such violations. Photographs of the area showed it to have been well maintained, and the plaintiff acknowledged that there was no broken condition. The plaintiff's attorney argued that it was a defective design, but did not offer an alternative. Our expert stated that this was a very common design, but was unable to say why this design was used in this location. A defense verdict was returned for Henri A. Demers after a brief deliberation by the Queens County jury. The plaintiff had sustained an impacted and comminuted fracture of the left proximal humerus which required intramedullary fixation with resulting disability of 45% loss of use of the dominant arm per a Workers Compensation Board determination. There was a substantial workers compensation lien. A settlement demand of $250,000 was presented against which no offer was made.  (December 2009)

Ramirez v. Ruchard G. Konstanzer

Soto v. Laith Jazrawi

The plaintiff was operating his vehicle westbound on 71st St., a one-way, one lane road controlled by a stop sign. The defendant was traveling south on Colonial Rd., a two-way, two lane street, also controlled by a stop sign. Both parties claimed that they stopped at the intersection and that the other party disregarded the stop sign. The plaintiff's injuries included a cervical disc fracture, herniated cervical discs, and a torn rotator cuff requiring surgical repair. The case was tried by Thomas Colameo in Supreme Court, Kings County. The plaintiff tried to establish that he had control of the intersection by relying upon the fact that his vehicle had traveled across the northbound lane of Colonial Rd. and was struck in the mid to rear portion of his vehicle. The primary defense was the plaintiff's testimony that at no time prior to the impact did he see the defendant's vehicle, thereby supporting the theory that he did not stop before entering the intersection. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant. (December 2009)

Gibson v. Park Lake Residences, et al.

The plaintiff brought a personal injury action for a trip and fall which occurred on the staircase leading up to her apartment.  The plaintiff claims that as she was walking up the staircase she tripped on the rubber tread of the staircase.   We represented all defendants which included the owner of the apartment complex and managing agent.  Jennifer Casey moved for summary judgment on the basis that plaintiff failed to establish that the defendants had notice of the alleged dangerous condition.  The Nassau County Court granted our motion for summary judgment and found that the plaintiff failed to offer evidence that the defendants were aware or on notice of the particular defect which caused the plaintiff to fall and defendants produced sufficient evidence to show that they properly maintained the area in question.  (December 2009)  

Estate of Buchta v. Charlie Brown's of Lakewood, Inc., et al.

This case involved a trip and fall in a Charlie Brown's Restaurant in Lakewood New Jersey.  The decedent, Gladys Buchta, was entering the restaurant when she tripped and fell over a floor mat in the vestibule.  The Plaintiff sued the restaurant and the landlord who in turn ultimately commenced a third-party action against our client, Milliken & Company, the alleged manufacturer of the mat, on a products liability theory.  Thereafter, the Plaintiff filed an amended Complaint to name Milliken as a direct defendant.  Although the Plaintiff argued that it was entitled to add Milliken as a defendant after the expiration of the statute of limitations pursuant to New Jersey's fictitious pleading rule, this office successfully moved to dismiss the Plaintiff's direct action based on a violation of the statute of limitations.  However, the third-party products liability action filed by Charlie Brown's remained viable.  After the completion of discovery, we filed a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the third-party action and all remaining cross claims.  That motion was granted by The Honorable Thomas E. O'Brien, Jr., of the Superior Court of New Jersey, Ocean County.  The matter was handled by Michael C. Salvo with the assistance of Michael Caldarella.  (October 2009)

Maragliano v. Joe Maggio, LLC, et al.

Tricom Media Holdings Inc., et al. v. Defendants Redacted

Kelly v. Godwin Pumps

This case involved a collision between a commercial truck owned by Godwin Pumps and a motorcycle that was being operated by the Plaintiff, Paul Kelly. Our driver, Edward Olsen, was traveling north on Route 44 in Logan Township, New Jersey with the intention of making a left-hand turn onto Floodgate Road. The Plaintiff claimed that our client failed to activate his directional signal and appeared to be pulling off to the right side of the road. As a result, he attempted to pass the truck on the left. As he was passing the truck it started to turn left and Plaintiff collided with the left side of the trailer just in front of the rear wheels. As a result of this accident, the Plaintiff sustained severe injuries, including a fractured right femur which required open reduction and internal fixation, and multiple fractures of the pelvis which required open reduction and internal fixation. The Plaintiff also sustained a severe degloving injury to his right thigh, which necessitated multiple surgeries, including skin grafts and resulted in severe permanent disfigurement of his leg. Other injuries sustained by the Plaintiff included a fracture of the left thumb, a lacerated penis and a drop foot on the right side. We represented Godwin Pumps of America and its driver, Edward Olsen and the case was tried by Michael C. Salvo of our Morristown, New Jersey Office in August of 2009. After five days of trial in Gloucester County, New Jersey, the jury returned a unanimous verdict in favor of the Defendants.

Canovas v. HSBC USA, et al.

Boone v. 110 Marcus Drive Associates

In Boone v. 100 Marcus Dr. Assocs., 61 A.D.3d 798 (2d Dep't 2009), the Appellate Division, Second Department reversed the Supreme Court's decision and dismissed the complaint and all cross-claims as against our client, Melville Snow Contractors. Plaintiff claimed that he slipped and fell on snow and ice while walking to work at 100 Marcus Drive. 100 Marcus had hired Melville Snow to plow snow and spread salt/sand mixtures at times of inclement weather as specified in their contract. Melville Snow subcontracted the plowing work to another party.

On appeal, Brendan T. Fitzpatrick and Richard J. DaVolio argued that the issues on this appeal concern the duty of care owed to a plaintiff that slipped and fell on snow and ice and its entitlement to indemnification. First, we submitted that Melville Snow owed no duty to plaintiff. 100 Marcus Drive hired Melville Snow to plow snow and spread salt/sand at its building. Plaintiff was not a party to the agreement. Melville Snow subcontracted the work to Jim's Asphalt Paving and never plowed the premises. According to the contract, 100 Marcus was obligated to inspect the work after it was completed and spread salt and sand when snow and ice melted and refroze. Melville Snow did not own or possess the property, and it did not assume 100 Marcus' duty to maintain it.

We submitted that none of the exceptions enunciated by the Court of Appeals that would allow plaintiff to maintain a direct action against Melville Snow applied. First, Melville Snow did not create or exacerbate any condition as there was no evidence of its negligence. Second, plaintiff did not detrimentally rely upon Melville Snow. Finally, Melville Snow did not completely assume 100 Marcus' duty to maintain the property. Therefore, Melville was entitled to the dismissal of Boone's complaint.

The Second Department agreed with our arguments and reversed. As we had argued, the Appellate Division ruled that Melville Snow owed no duty to plaintiff. Therefore, the Appellate Division granted our summary-judgment motion and dismissed the complaint and all cross-claims against it. The Court also found that plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact in opposition to our motion.   (August 2009)

Cox v. Commerical Construction Corp.

The plaintiff was allegedly injured when she was caused to trip and fall on the raised edge of a large steel plate located in the crosswalk at Parson's Boulevard at its intersection with Union Turnpike, Queens County.  At the time, our client was in the process of constructing a new building on a lot located on the corner of Parsons Boulevard and Union Turnpike.  Our client testified and produced records evidencing the fact that the co-defendant Con Edison was performing work in the area of plaintiff's accident and that our work was confined to the lot and did not extend to the street.  Jennifer Casey moved for summary judgment as did co-defendant Con Edison.  Con Edison claimed that contrary to the evidence we produced, that they were not performing work in the area at the time of the accident.  The Supreme Court, Queens County granted our motion for summary judgment however denied Con Edison's motion for summary judgment.  (July 2009)

Hunt v. Levittown UFSD

During summer recess from school, plaintiff, 7 years old and his younger sister were taken to the Wisdom Lane Middle School by their grandfather.  While playing on a piece of project adventure equipment at the school, plaintiff fell off and injured his elbow.  The equipment, called  a "whale watcher" was like a giant wooden see-saw.  Plaintiff and his sister were standing on one side when she suddenly jumped to the other side causing the side they were standing to go up and plaintiff to fall off.  Plaintiff claimed the School District was negligent because a board was missing from the whale watcher and that his grandfather was negligent for not properly supervising.  We represented the Levittown UFSD and the case was tried by Maureen Casey of our Albertson office.  After 2  days of trial the jury found the missing board was not the proximate cause of the accident.

Gazzetti v. Central Transport, Inc. and Jean Phillippe Wesnel

Richards vs. Cadbury Schweppes SBS, Inc.,

The plaintiff claimed a foreign object in bottle of Snapple drink. After taking a drink of tea, she claimed she saw an object in the bottle. The plaintiff's attorney sent the bottle to a lab for inspection. The independent lab lost the sample prior to any testing. The remaining portion was destroyed accidently by plaintiff's attorney. We requested a sample of the object and liquid for testing. The Court's order required production of a sample or affidavit that it was no longer in existence.   Richard DaVolio moved for dismissal based on spoliation of evidence. The Supreme Court, Bronx County granted the motion, dismissing plaintiff's complaint stating, " While the Spoliation of the plaintiff's evidence is at best negligent, considering that such evidence is key physical evidence in support of plaintiff's testimony, absent other physical identifying evidence to level the playing field, the defendants are prejudiced by the deprivation of essential evidence to establish their case on defense."  (June 2009)

Miller v. Valey Stream UFSD

The plaintiff was a first grade student at the Robert W. Carbonaro Elementary School within the Valley Stream School District.  The plaintiff was injured during recess when he was playing on the monkey bars. At the time of his injury, the plaintiff was attempting to skip a rung by going from the first to third rung. As the plaintiff was reaching for the third rung his hand slipped and he fell on his left elbow.  The plaintiff testified that there was only woman watching the kids at recess. Both the principal and aide testified that there were two women responsible for watching the kids on the playground. The plaintiff sustained a fracture of the left arm requiring open reduction internal fixation.  We represented the Valley Stream School District and the case was tried by Thomas Montiglio of our Albertson office.  After a three day trial, the Nassau County jury returned a verdict of no negligence on behalf of the school district. (June 2009)

Matter of Central Mut. Ins. Co. v. Bemiss

Mr. Fitzpatrick helped author the amicus brief for DANY in support of the position taken by Central Mutual Insurance Company in this dispute over SUM coverage. The issue in Bemiss was whether consent-to-settle and subrogation-protection provisions in an SUM endorsement in an auto policy should still be enforced once an insured exhausted the available policy limits of one tortfeasor in a multi-vehicle accident. The Court found that they should be enforced with regard to any other settlement the insured may make and granted Central's motion to permanently stay the arbitration. The facts involved a chain-reaction, five-car accident on Interstate 90 in Albany. Bemiss was the third vehicle and was struck twice in the rear: once by Kati Kowalczyk (fourth car) and then John Genski (fifth car). Kowalczyk had a $25,000 policy with GEICO. Genski had a $25,000 will Progressive. Bemiss had $100,000 in SUM coverage from Central. On July 27, 2006, Bemiss' attorney informed Central that GEICO tendered its $25,000 policy limit, and that Bemiss was going to accept it and execute a release unless Central advanced this amount. Central did not respond. At some point, Bemiss also decided to settle with Genski and Progressive for $2,500 (less than the policy). Bemiss never notified Central of her intent to settle with Genski or asked for consent. Bemiss then executed a general release in favor of Kowalczyk, GEICO, Genski, and Progressive. The release did not preserve Central's subrogation rights. Bemiss demanded SUM arbitration from Central seeking $72,500. Central disclaimed and denied coverage based upon her violation of the policy provisions: Bemiss settled with the Genski/Progressive without prior notification or consent and signed a release that did not protect Central. In reaching its conclusion, the Court examined the interplay of the three policy provisions: consent-to-settle, exhaustion, and subrogation protection and reviewed the history of Insurance Regulation 35-D. The Court ruled that Bemiss settled with Kowalczyk in compliance with the policy and could have then made a claim for $75,000 in SUM coverage. She did not have to pursue Genski in order to become eligible to collect the remaining limits of her policy. But once she chose to resolve her claim against Genski, she could not compromise Central's subrogation rights, and the Court ruled in favor of Central. (June 2009)

Martin v. Consolidated Edison Company , et al

In a Labor Law action brought by a construction worker employed by the general contractor who claims to have sustained various permanent injuries when she sunk in the mud at the worksite, the Supreme Court, Bronx County granted Kristen Weinberger's motion for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law 241 (6) claims on the ground that the Industrial Code sections cited by plaintiff were inapplicable to the facts of this case.  (May 2009)

Korman v. William Platts and Central Transport

Margino, an infant et. al. v. Sewanhaka Central High School District

Maureen Casey was awarded summary judgment on behalf of the Sewanhaka Central High School District in a case involving an eighth grade student who claimed injury when she slipped and fell during gym class while playing soccer. Plaintiff alleged that the School District was negligent for conducting the gym class on a wet field. Plaintiff contended that the School District was on notice of the wet condition of the field because two other students slipped and fell earlier that morning. However, the infant plaintiff's testimony revealed that she never observed any wet conditions on the field during warm up or that the other students who fell complained of a wet field condition. Plaintiff never observed the condition of the field where the other students purportedly fell. The gym teacher was an eyewitness to the fall standing approximately 5 to 10 feet away on the sideline. The Court concluded that the School District established entitlement to summary judgment as a matter of law since closer supervision could not have prevented the plaintiff from slipping and falling. (April 2009).

McPherson v. L. Riso & Sons Co., and NYC Partnership Housing Development Fund Company, Inc. v. Larino Masonry Inc

Angelo J. Bongiorno was awarded summary judgment on behalf of L. Riso & Sons Co., and NYC Partnership Housing Development Fund Company, Inc., on their third party claims for contractual indemnification and breach of insurance procurement clause from Larino Masonry Inc.. Plaintiff, who was employed by Larino Masonry was injured when planks of a scaffold dislodged causing him to fall through a freshly built brick wall and into a building. Bronx County Judge Sharon Aarons found that our client, L. Riso & Sons (the general contractor) had a general supervisory role over the work on Larino Masonry and as such L. Riso was entitled to contractual indemnification. In addition, Judge Aarons found that Larino Masonry breached the insurance procurement provision of the contract when they failed to acquire coverage for L. Riso as well as NYC and as such, L.Riso and NYC were entitled to damages arising from that breach. (April 2009)

Sundahl v. Preferred Consulting Services Inc.

Smith v. Bay Crane Service, Inc. ,

In a personal injury action arising out of a construction accident, the plaintiff was injured when he was caused to fall from an open steel beam by a steel joist being hosited by a crane, we moved for summary judgment on behalf of our client who leased the crane to plaintiff's employer. The lease provided for the bare rental of the crane and imposed upon the lessee the responsibility of hiring a competent operator and securing of all permits. The Supreme Court, Bronx County granted Kristen Weinberger's motion for summary judgment.  (March 2009)

Clark v. Blacktop Maintenance Corp.

Carmine Carolei was awarded a defense verdict in Supreme Court, Dutchess County in a case involving the plaintiff motorcyclist who struck our client's tractor trailer.  Plaintiff had no recollection of the accident however his friend claimed that our trailer crossed the double yellow line.  The accident reconstruction performed by the Sheriff was in our favor however our client did not have a proper hauling permit at the time of the accident.  The plaintiff lost his leg above the knee and fractured his left wrist and index finger which required surgery.  The plaintiff's settlement demand was 1.4 million.  The Judge gave the plaintiff the emergency charge.  The jury found that our client was not negligent.   (March 2009)

Diaz v. RCPI Landmark Properties, LLC

Nick Cardascia was awarded summary judgment on behalf of his client RCPI Landmark Properties, LLC in a personal injury accident where plaintiff claims that she was injured when an elevator in which she was a passenger suddenly plummeted and then stopped short.  Judge Diamond of the Supreme Court, New York County held that it is well settled that a building owner who enters into an exclusive maintenance contract with an elevator company to inspect, maintain and repair an elevator may not be held liable for injuries resulting from an elevator malfunction or defect unless the owner had actual or constructive notice of the defective condition.  (March 2009)

Woldenberg v. AS III Design Studio

David Conklin successfully moved for summary judgment in a New York County case where the plaintiff, Susan Woldenberg, a licensed architect claimed that her premises sustained structural and water damage as a result of ongoing construction at the adjoining premises. She also claimed to have suffered personal injuries when construction workers dropped debris from the roof of the worksite, striking her. Our client was the on-site architect for the renovation and played an active role in the construction and in trying to resolve the ongoing complaints of plaintiff during construction.   In our motion for summary judgment, we argued that our client did not face liability for any injuries sustained by the plaintiff as the material was allegedly dropped by the co-defendant contractor. We further argued that our client did not direct, supervise or control the contractor in performing their work and that Ms. Woldenberg was otherwise not a protected class member to impose liability under the New York State Labor Law.   With respect to Ms. Woldenberg's claims of architectural malpractice against our client, we argued that Ms. Woldenberg was not in privity of contract with our client and had no standing to bring suit. We further argued that Ms. Woldenberg could not prove that any action of our client was the proximate cause of her damages and that plaintiff had no expert to opine that there was a departure from acceptable industry standards which was a pre-requisite to commencing a malpractice against our client. (March 2009).

McPartland v. Slattery Skanska

Rivera, an infant et. al. v. Westbury UFSD

Maureen Casey was awarded summary judgment on behalf of the Westbury Union Free School District in a case involving a kindergarten student injured when her arm got caught in the adjacent railing as she attempted to step down from a piece of playground equipment on to a "bongo" step. Plaintiffs alleged that the School District was negligent not only in supervising the student but also in designing, manufacturing and installing the playground equipment. The playground was supervised by three aides. The School District had no involvement in the design, manufacture or installation of the playground equipment. In opposition to the School District's motion plaintiffs submitted an affidavit from an expert for playground safety, William Marletta. This expert opined that not only was the playground equipment age inappropriate for kindergarten students but that the equipment lacked safety rails and that the "bongo" steps were unsafe and unstable. The Court concluded that the School District demonstrated that it provided adequate playground supervision and that since plaintiffs' expert inspected the playground over two years after the incident he failed to establish the condition of the playground at the time of the accident. In addition, this expert based his opinion upon alleged violations of non-mandatory guidelines for playground equipment. (March 2009)

Lehr et al. v. Mothers Work, Inc.

Brian J. Donnelly successfully moved for summary judgment on behalf of his client Mothers Work, Inc. in a personal injury action where plaintiff claimed that she tripped and fell over the leg of a clothing rack concealed by clothing strewn on the floor in a Mothers Work store located in the Staten Island Shopping mall. The Plaintiff sustained a right hip fracture requiring surgery with open reduction and internal fixation. During mediation, Plaintiff's counsel stated a demand of $550,000. After hearing oral argument, the Court granted the our motion on the grounds that our client did not have actual or constructive notice of the alleged dangerous condition finding that the allegedly strewn clothes could have been deposited within minutes of the accident and that any other conclusion would be mere speculation. (March 2009)

Corcoran v. Adelchi Ceroni

The plaintiff was injured as a result of a two car accident and one bicyclist. The defendant bicyclist never appeared in the action although the bicyclist caused the accident. The plaintiff claimed that we hit the bicyclist and then crossed the double yellow line and struck plaintiff head on.  Our client testified that he hit the bicyclist but did not cross double yellow line and stayed in his own lane. An independent witness testified that plaintiff hit the bicyclist and then crossed the double yellow line and struck our client.  The plaintiff sustained an injury to his knee requiring a knee replacement and had a settlement demand of $300,000.  We argued that the sole proximate cause of the accident was the bicyclist as well as the emergency doctrine.  A Suffolk County jury returned a verdict in our favor on liability.  Bob Hirsch tried the case on behalf of the firm. (February 2009) 

Rosenfeld v. Wilber Baker III, et al.

The plaintiff, a 39 year old female, was struck in the rear as a result of a three car accident.  She alleged that as a result of the accident she required 17 surgical procedures including hysterectomy; two arthroscopies of the right knee; arthroscopy of the right hip; implant and removal of three spinal stimulators; total right knee replacement; total right hip replacement; two separate reductions of of right hip dislocations following replacement; revision of the femoral head of right hip two weeks after last reduction;and revision of the total hip replacement, reamed acetabulum one month later.  During summation plaintiff's counsel requested over $4 million dollars for his client for the medical lien, past pain and suffering and future pain and suffering. A Suffolk County jury unanimously answered "No" to each question relating to plaintiff satisfying the no fault threshold and awarded our client a defense verdict.  Bob Hirsch tried the case on behalf of the firm. (February 2009)

Lazar v. JEM Caterers of Nassau, Inc. and Sands at Atlantic Beach

Angelo J. Bongiorno was awarded summary judgment on behalf of JEM Caterers of Nassau, Inc. and Sands at Atlantic Beach, dismissing plaintiff's complaint. The infant plaintiff was injured while walking on our client's wooden deck when she stepped on a 2 inch splinter which required surgical removal. Nassau County Judge Roy Mahon found that neither JEM nor the Sands had actual or constructive notice of the splintering wooden board. (February 2009)

Mandracchia-Scott, As Administratrix v. Bay Crane Service Inc. et al

McDonald v. Safway

Prior to the trial of this case, the matter settled for 8.5 million.  At issue was our right to contractual indemnity from All-Safe which was to be determined at trial.  The key issue was whether the installation of catchall was included in the purchase order. The purchase order contained a valid contractual indemnity clause and allowed for oral modifications (i.e. our position that the catchall installation was added orally to the purchase order).  All-Safe contended installation was a separate purchase order/contract.  A jury verdict in favor of All-Safe was overturned by Judge Ruiz of Bronx County, as being against the weight of the credible evidence. The Judge was apparently anticipating a potential problem with the verdict as she immediately ruled on our motion to overturn the verdict and did so in a lengthy decision wherein she marshalled the evidence in detail.  Patrick J. Cooney handled the trial on behalf of the firm.  (January 2009)

Lemos v. T/S Associates

David Conklin was awarded summary judgment on behalf of his client in a case where the plaintiff, a brick mason, was injured when he tripped and fell on debris at a construction.   The plaintiff commenced an action against our client claiming they were a contractor working on the site and were subject to liability under the New York State Labor Law.  In moving for summary judgment we established that our client was a mechanical consultant who did not cause or create the defect in question and who was not subjected to New York State Labor Law liability. (January 2009)

Gubaydullin v. Domino's Pizza, LLC.

The plaintiff purchased a Domino's Pizza and had taken it home to his apartment to eat together with his girlfriend and another friend.  The plaintiff claimed to have bitten into a slice of pizza, and a 2.5 centimeter-long metal object, resembling a stiff piece of thin-guage wire, penetrated the top of his tongue. The plaintiff made a demand of $350,000.  A Kings County jury awarded our client a defense verdict.  Christopher Kendric tried the case on behalf of the firm.  (November 2008)  

Gil v. NDI King Limited Partnership and Rental & Management Associates Corp.

Angelo J. Bongiorno was awarded summary judgment on behalf of NDI King Limited Partnership and Rental & Management Associates Corp., on their cross claims for contractual and common law indemnification against their tenants, Red House Chinese Restaurant. Plaintiff slipped and fell on snow and ice in front of the restaurant. Bronx County Judge Larry Schachner found that the lease agreement contained a valid indemnification provision requiring Red House to indemnify NDI King and Rental & Management. (October 2008)

Dortonne v. Gladys Grisales

The plaintiff, was a front-seat passenger in a motor vehicle operated by her sister-in-law, Angeline Jean-Gilles. Ms. Jean-Gilles had stopped her vehicle in the parking lot. The vehicle was struck by a vehicle operated by our client, Gladys Grisales. Ms. Grisales was reversing out of a parking spot when she struck the side of Ms. Jean-Gilles' vehicle just as the plaintiff, Gertha Dortonne, was exiting. The impact to the open door knocked Gertha Dortonne back into her seat.  The plaintiff sustained a fracture of left hip which resulted in surgery and had a demand of $1 million.  We were awarded a defense verdict as to damages as the jury found that plaintiff's fractured hip was not due to this acicdent therfore plaintiff did  not neet the serious injury threshold. This case was tried by Bob Hirsh on behalf of the firm in the United Stated District Court, Eastern District.  (April 2008)

Line v. Smithtown Central School District

The plaintiff, a senior at Smithtown H.S., was walking to his car after school and slipped and fell on ice in a student parking lot. The accident happened on a Monday afternoon after a weekend blizzard that had accumulations of 18" of snow. The grounds crew worked overtime all weekend to clear the snow and came in at 4 am on Monday for a final plowing and sanding. Plaintiff claimed only the center roadway in the student parking area was plowed and that ice remained in the car stalls. He also claimed the sanding was not done until the afternoon when cars filled the lot. There was a prior slip and fall that morning and plaintiff had two friends/eye witnesses who supported his version. The plaintiff sustained a fractured ankle that required open reduction internal fixation and a 2nd surgery to remove one of the screws   The plaintiff's demand was originally $350K.  A Suffolk County jury awared our client, Smithtown C.S.D. a defense verdict.   Maureen Casey tried the case on behalf of the firm.   (April 2008)

Salcedo v. Prana Associates Twenty, L.P.

The plaintiff allegedly tripped and fell due to her claim that our client negligently maintained their building.  The plaintiff sustained a SLAP tear to her dominant shoulder requiring surgery.  The plaintiff had a demand of $500,000.  A Bronx County jury awarded our client a defense verdict.  Daniel G. Sergiacomi handled the matter on behalf of the firm.  (December 2007)

Remekie v. 740 Corp., et al.

Plaintiff was a 57-year-old laborer who claimed to have sustained knee and psychiatric injuries when the elevator he was using to remove debris from an apartment renovation allegedly "fell" a short distance and stopped suddenly. Our client did not have an ongoing service contract covering the elevator in question but had been hired to rebuild the elevator's main machine approximately two months prior to the accident. The building owner also alleged that our client had performed annual mandated Local Law 10 inspections of the elevator. The denial of our motion for summary judgment by Supreme Court, Bronx County was reversed on appeal to the First Department. The First Department held that the building owner failed to submit competent evidence of any defect in the elevator attributable to our client's negligence. The building owner also failed to establish that our client had notice of any allegedly dangerous condition. Finally, the building owner failed to submit admissible evidence to establish when our client had allegedly performed Local Law 10 inspections. Therefore, in the absence of a contract for routine or systematic maintenance, an independent elevator repair contractor such as our client had no duty to inspect or warn of alleged defects. The case was handled by Diane R. Silvergleid and Brendan Fitzpatrick. (June 2008).

Kilkenny v. Defendants Redacted

Bearam v. Steven Graber, et al.

Ralph A. Cosentino was successful in obtaining the dismissal of the plaintiff's Complaint which was pending in the Supreme Court, Bronx County.  This was an action for personal injuries brought by the plaintiff who claimed that she slipped and fell while working at a group residence. Our client Steven Grabiner incorrectly sued as Steven Graber, was the Director of Administration for plaintiff's employer which also maintained the Group Home. In essence, our client was a co-worker of the plaintiff on the date of loss. Mr. Cosentino argued that the law suit was barred pursuant to the New York State Workers' Compensation Law which establishes the exclusive remedy of Workers' Compensation benefits which plaintiff received as a result of the occurrence. Judge Stanley Green of the Supreme Court, granted the motion and judgment was submitted to the Clerk of the Court on behalf of the client.(September 2009)

Lillian v. Michael Raneri and Edgewater Park Owners Cooperative, Inc.

Ralph A. Cosentino was successful in obtaining the dismissal of the plaintiff's complaint via motion practice, in a  case pending in Supreme Court, Bronx County. This was an action for personal injuries brought by the plaintiff who claimed she fell off of the front porch/steps of the co-defendant's residence. Our client, Edgewater Park Owners Cooperative, Inc., is a cooperative corporation that owns the land in the Edgewater Park community but it did not own the individual residential structures. The co-defendant, homeowner, had a proprietary lease that stated that the cooperative corporation was not responsible for the maintenance and operation of the individual dwelling structures. Furthermore, the proprietary lease specifically stated that the homeowner was the sole party responsible for compliance with all codes, rules, regulations, statues and laws governing buildings in the City and State of New York.  Mr. Cosentino argued that Edgewater Park Owners Cooperative, Inc. could not be liable for the plaintiff's injuries since it did now own, operate or maintain the situs of the accident. (November 2009).

Sayed v. Victor E. Aviles and Hoyt Transportation Corp.

Banigan v. Greater Jamaica Development Corp.

Verduzco-Soto v. Jovil Contracting Corp. et al.

Kristin L. Weinberger successfully moved for summary judgment on behalf of our client Jovil Contracting Corp. in a personal injury action arising out of a construction accident in which the plaintiff was allegedly injured when he was caused to fall while descending scaffolding erected on the exterior of an apartment building. The Supreme Court, Bronx County granted our motion holding that Jovil had established that it was an "independent supplier" of the scaffold, exercising no supervision or control with respect to the equipment at the site. Furthermore, Jovil demonstrated that it did not otherwise owe a duty to supervise the plaintiff's work or to provide safety equipment. The Decision/Order of Judge Thompson was published in the "Decisions of Interest" section of the New York Law Journal on (February 2009)

Oviedo v. Summer Management

Partner Jennifer Casey and associate Kenneth Danielsen of Ahmuty, Demers & McManus' Albertson office recently obtained summary judgment on behalf of a large commercial building management firm and an owner in a case stemming from injuries allegedly sustained as a result of a store patron's slip and fall on a wet floor. It was claimed that the wet condition was caused by air conditioning condensate caused to accumulate on the floor in the vestibule of the store, as a result of a lack of proper drainage of an overhead through-the-wall air conditioning unit.

Nketia.v. 1332 Fulton< LLC.

Kristin L. Weinberger successfully moved for summary judgment on behalf of our client, 1332 Fulton, LLC., in a personal injury action pending in Bronx County Supreme Court where plaintiff claimed that she was caused to slip and fall as she was descending stairs adjacent to a stage set up in an auditorium located in a building owned by our client.  At the time of the accident, The City of New York, a third-party defendant, leased the entire premises from our client and contracted with the defendant 1332 Fulton Avenue Day Care Center, Inc. to operate a day care center at the premises.  Justice John A. Barone found that our client did not occupy or have any special use of the premises and that the maintenance of the interior, non-structual aspect of the building was the responsibility of the tenant.  Furthermore, Judge Barone held hat since the platform/stage and stairs were deemed a structural defect, the out-of-possession owner/landlord could not be held liable despite the fact that it retained the right to re-enter the premises for inspection and maintenance pursuant to the lease terms. (May 2010)