Kim Townsend recently obtained a defense verdict in a construction site motor vehicle accident case, in New York State Supreme Court, Suffolk County.

It was plaintiff’s contention that while driving through a traffic “chute” on our client’s construction site, a 60,000 ton crane slammed into his truck, causing violent vehicle movement and significant damage; all of which allegedly caused serious injury to plaintiff’s back and shoulder. Plaintiff contended that management of the construction site traffic chute, and crane placement, was performed in a negligent manner and thus caused the occurrence. Specifically, plaintiff argued that the client’s flagmen were negligent in waiving plaintiff through the chute while the crane—not properly placed per DOT specifications—was rotating with a load of steel beams in its boom sling. Kim argued that, notwithstanding our client’s theoretical negligence, plaintiff’s testimony was false on important and material matters—specifically the force of the crane’s impact with his truck, which could not plausibly be reconciled with photos of the vehicle damage. Accordingly, it was argued, the jury should disregard all of plaintiff’s testimony and find in favor of defendants. After approximately 4 hours of deliberation, the jury returned a unanimous defense verdict.

As a consequence of the accident, plaintiff claimed to have sustained injury to his mid back, requiring thoracic vertebral fusion surgery, and a torn rotator cuff, requiring arthroscopic surgery.

Prior to trial, plaintiff’s demand was $5,500,000. The demand was reduced to $2,500,000 during jury deliberations.

John Blumenstock recently obtained a defense verdict in a pedestrian knockdown case in NY Supreme Court, Rockland County. On the night of October 15, 2013, a then 67-year-old woman with considerable emotional issues, was struck and dragged 20-30 feet along the roadway by our client’s bus as she was crossing the entrance to the New York State Thruway in Clarkstown, New York. Plaintiff alleged that the driver negligently failed to see her in the crosswalk despite good lighting and clear conditions and failed to yield the right of way. John argued that plaintiff was not in the crosswalk, difficult to see in dark clothes, walked between cars/traffic, and stopped in middle of road without trying to avoid contact with bus.

As a consequence of the accident, plaintiff claimed she sustained fourteen broken bones (three requiring surgery,) ligament injuries, lacerations requiring debridement and closure with sutures and fracture blisters. She was hospitalized for two months and then had to undergo 5 months of inpatient rehabilitation physical and occupational therapy. Medical expenses were roughly $1,240,000.

Prior to trial, the plaintiff’s demand stood at $2,500,000.The jury returned a complete defense verdict on liability after 20 minutes of deliberations.

Matt Vitucci recently obtained a defense verdict in Mercer County, New Jersey on behalf of our client-limousine company-whose vehicle rear ended plaintiff’s car at a speed in excess of 30 miles per hour. As a result of the accident, plaintiff claimed he was caused to suffer an exacerbation of pre-existing lumbar and cervical disc disease, as well as constant severe pain and limitation of movement of the cervical and lumbar spine. Plaintiff also claimed work restrictions in that he could no longer perform his full duties as a laborer and that instead he has been forced to work on light-duty status.

Specifically, plaintiff, Noel Pineda, a 46-year-old Hispanic male, was in the right lane of three southbound travel lanes on Route One in the vicinity of Princeton NJ in heavy stop and go traffic at the time of the accident.  Pineda claimed that the impact was very substantial and pushed his car into the rear of the vehicle he was following, bending the frame of his car in the process.

At trial plaintiff claimed that the accident caused him to suffer from an exacerbation of pre-existing lumbar and cervical disc disease as well as constant severe pain and limitation of movement of the cervical and lumbar spine. Plaintiff claimed work restrictions in that he could no longer perform his full duties as a laborer and that instead he has been forced to work on light-duty status. He further claimed at trial that he can no longer perform many of his pre-accident pursuits, including basic activities of daily living and that those are limited by pain and restriction in motion.

The defendant driver testified that he observed the plaintiff moving about freely at the accident situs – bending over to take pictures of the vehicle damage and bending over to get items out of his car in an apparently uninjured fashion. Plaintiff declined medical attention at the scene. It was pointed out by Matt during cross examination that plaintiff was less than forthcoming with regard to information regarding prior injuries to his neck and back. It was further pointed out that plaintiff had been involved in prior accidents—one in 1995 where he fractured his neck and was forced to wear a halo for 6 months. He then then was involved in another accident in 2007. He brought lawsuits for both prior accidents and therein made claims for lower back and neck injuries. Plaintiff’s physician during cross examination admitted that he had been given incomplete information regarding both prior accidents. The defendant’s examining physician opined that any pathology he observed in the MRI’s of plaintiff’s spine all pre-dated the subject accident and that plaintiff’s injuries amounted to sprains and strains only. After deliberations following a 4-day trial the jury returned a verdict for the defendant finding that the plaintiff had failed to prove the defendant was negligent. Congratulations to Matt!

Plaintiff alleged that while in the course of his employment on a construction site in New York County he was struck in the head and face with rebar, causing him to fall and sustain numerous physical injuries. We represented the owner and general contractor on the project. In plaintiff’s hospital chart he is credited as saying he injured himself while trying to lift, push and pull rebar and not after being struck in the head and face, as he alleged at deposition. Plaintiff’s entitlement to a finding that defendants violated Labor Law § 240(1) went to the Appellate Division, First Department. The First Department held that if plaintiff’s version of the accident occurred as alleged, the accident fell within the definition of Labor Law § 240(1). However, because of the discrepancies contained in the hospital records, the defendants were entitled to a jury trial.

At trial, plaintiff’s counsel fought vigorously to keep the hospital records from the jury. Included in plaintiff’s counsel’s argument is that the plaintiff, who spoke Spanish, did not have a translator. However, we successfully argued that plaintiff’s admissions were sufficiently reliable and germane to diagnosis and treatment. Moreover, and to further drive our position home with the jury, we subpoenaed one of the record keepers. This allowed us to introduce an additional prior inconsistent statement into evidence.

As a result of the accident, plaintiff, who was only 36 years-of-age at the time of the alleged accident, underwent five surgeries including two for a right shoulder rotator cuff tear and three hip surgeries. He also alleged neck and back injuries. Prior to trial, plaintiff’s demand was $4.5M. Defendants offered $50,000. At closing, plaintiff’s counsel asked the jury to award his client $5.25M. After less than two hours of deliberations, the jury awarded him $0.

On January 11, 2019, Kenneth S. Merber obtained a favorable verdict in favor of the firm’s client.   The case was transferred by the client to Ken from another firm for trial purposes.  Ken’s represented a commercial bus company and its driver that struck Plaintiff’s car.

As a result of the accident, Plaintiff sustained fractures of his left distal radius and ulnar styloid of his left wrist and a fracture of the base of his second metacarpal.  He had surgery to repair an alleged TFCC tear and the removal of a ganglion cyst from his left wrist.  Plaintiff also underwent left ulnar decompression and left ulnar nerve transposition surgeries.  Plaintiff also alleged he suffered 3 cervical and 1 lumbar disc herniations in addition to a TBI and neuropsychological injuries. He underwent a lumbar fusion at L4-5 with implantation of a cage, bone graft and bone stimulating device. All of the hand and wrist fractures and herniated discs were confirmed by the defendants’ orthopedic expert.

Ken conceded liability and that all of the wrist/hand fractures and treatment related thereto were caused by the accident and that Plaintiff was entitled to reasonable compensation for those injuries.  Ken argued that none of the neck or back injuries or the substantial treatment Plaintiff received were causally related to the bus on car accident.  Plaintiff alleged $390,000 in past medical expenses and $750,000 would be required for his future medical care needs.  Plaintiff’s demand was $1.4 million.  Ken’s client had offered $425,000.  After a 4 week trial in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Bergen County, the 8 jurors returned a unanimous verdict of $10,000 for Plaintiff’s pain and suffering related to the wrist injury. They concluded Plaintiff did not suffer a causally related neck or back injury. They awarded $28,640 for Plaintiff’s past medical expenses and -0- for his future care.

Last week, Matthew J. Vitucci obtained the dismissal of a motor vehicle case in the Bronx. The facts were simple, our client’s tractor trailer rear ended the plaintiff’s work van in which he was a passenger. Mr. Vitucci conceded liability to defend various causation issues connected with plaintiff’s cervical fusion and shoulder surgery.

After the accident, plaintiff had extensive medical treatment including an emergency room visit with complaints of pain to his head, neck, and mid back. Following his release from the emergency room, plaintiff’s treatment included a chiropractor, an acupuncture specialist, a neurologist and an orthopedic surgeon. He underwent MRIs of his neck, mid back, lower back and brain. He was subsequently referred to a spinal surgeon who later performed a cervical discectomy and fusion. Plaintiff later underwent an arthroscopic procedure on his shoulder. Finally, plaintiff claimed to have sustained a traumatic brain injury which lead him to be forgetful and unable to find his doctors to attend medical appointments, which allegedly rendered him to be non-functional.

On direct examination, plaintiff testified that he could not return to work as a construction welder or continue his black belt training in karate. Plaintiff contended he had no source of income and basically sat around his house.

During a two-day cross examination of the plaintiff, in a rare real-life Perry Mason moment, it was revealed to the jury that the plaintiff and his common law wife had purchased and were in the process of renovating 6 buildings in a low income neighborhood for rental and that plaintiff had perjured himself by stating under oath that he and his wife lacked any income following the accident. Following the cross examination, plaintiff’s counsel moved to be relieved as counsel. Mr. Vitucci’s cross motion, for an order of dismissal premised upon plaintiff’s documented perjury on the stand, was granted. Immediately prior to the dismissal of the case, counsel had in court and was ready to call to the stand a renowned neuropsychologist who was prepared to testify that the plaintiff suffered from encephalopathy which rendered him cognitively as someone who is suffering from severe dementia. The last settlement demand was the policy limits.I

GVK’s client was a supermarket that leased space in a strip mall. Plaintiff, a patron who had just left the supermarket, was injured when she tripped and fell in a hole in the parking lot. Plaintiff sued the supermarket, the property owner and the parking lot maintenance company.

The property owner asserted cross-claims for contractual indemnification.  Arguing Espinal, the case by plaintiff was fairly easily dismissed. The cross-claims were more complicated but by juxtaposing the carefully elicited deposition testimony with the language of the agreement between the property owner and supermarket, we successfully demonstrated to the Court that the supermarket did not owe a duty to the property owner despite the plaintiff having just come from its store.

Following a three-day bifurcated trial before The Honorable Larry Martin in the Supreme Court, Kings County, James Deegan obtained a defense verdict for our clients, in the matter of Guez v. Frishberg. At trial, the issue was whether the defendants were negligent in allowing or creating a recurring ice condition caused by improperly maintained awnings and gutters; which allowed for melting snow to run off onto the landing and the exterior stairs below. GVK clients, Kenneth and Sally Frishberg, the owners and first floor residents of a two-family residential building in Brooklyn, NY, rented the 2nd floor apartment of the building to plaintiff. The Frishbergs retained the responsibility of maintaining the exterior of the premises, including snow and ice removal throughout the course of the tenancy.

Plaintiff claimed that his fall was due to the accumulation of ice on the landing from snow melting and freezing over the course of several days, which stemmed from a snow storm of over twenty-two inches that fell five days earlier. Although, defendants admitted to the recurring ice condition and the presence of ice on the stairway, Mr. Deegan argued that the incident arose from plaintiff tripping rather than slipping on ice and citing to an EMT report quoting plaintiff, and that the landing outside plaintiff’s front door was free and clear of ice. Mr. Deegan ultimately convinced the jury that plaintiff was solely responsible for his own accident by virtue of his admissions to the EMT attendants and convinced the jury that plaintiff’s fall was not due to any recurring ice condition caused or created by the defendants.

Plaintiff claimed the incident caused injuries to his neck, back and a displaced distal fracture of the humerus requiring surgery involving open reduction and internal fixation and several months of physical therapy.

Plaintiff’s pre-trial demand was $450,000.00. A final offer of $175,000.00 was made at the close of plaintiff’s case, however, plaintiff rejected the offer. The trial proceeded to summations and verdict wherein the jury returned a defense verdict in less than 45 minutes.

On June 29, 2018, Chad Sjoquist obtained a unanimous defense verdict on behalf of a Turkish restaurant and its employee in a lawsuit involving a collision of two bicycle riders in Manhattan. The case was tried before Justice Andrew Borrok in the Supreme Court, New York County.

The plaintiff was riding his bicycle home from work and was traveling north in a bicycle lane on the Upper East Side. He claimed that our client’s delivery person was illegally riding south in the same bicycle lane, and suddenly turned into the plaintiff. The employee denied this allegation and claimed that he was also riding north when the plaintiff tried to pass him and struck the employee’s bicycle.

The plaintiff sustained multiple fractures and dislocations in his left shoulder, elbow and forearm, and he underwent four separate surgeries. His counsel asked the jury to award at least $3.5 million in damages, and the plaintiff’s settlement demand was never below our clients’ primary policy limit.

During the trial, Mr. Sjoquist raised significant questions regarding the plaintiff’s credibility based on the plaintiff’s criminal history and inconsistent testimony regarding certain details of the accident. Mr. Sjoquist also called the customer who had ordered the food that the client was delivering at the time of the accident and who was north of the accident location, to corroborate the delivery person’s assertion that he was riding north at the time of the accident. After asking for various exhibits, the jury deliberated for less than fifteen minutes before reaching a unanimous defense verdict.

In a matter tried before Judge Christine Farrington in the New Jersey Superior Court, Bergen County, over the course of two weeks, Matthew J. Vitucci obtained a defense verdict on behalf of a tractor trailer company and its driver, in a highly emotional wrongful death suit filed on behalf of a 13 year old bicyclist.  Plaintiffs, the parents of the bicyclist, sought recovery for wrongful death, conscious pain and suffering and fear of impending death.   Plaintiffs sought recovery above the defendants’ policy limits pursuant to a claim of bad faith.

On June 17, 2015, the 13 year old was bicycling to school.  Upon approaching the intersection where the accident occurred, the child was seen by the defendant driver to be riding fast along a downhill roadway while also looking down.  During the trial cross examination of plaintiffs’ witnesses, including a school crossing guard and a responding police lieutenant, it was revealed that at the time of the fatal collision, the child was late for class.

There was no traffic control in the bicyclist’s direction, whereas the tractor trailer had a stop sign facing him at the subject intersection.  After stopping and then moving forward to see beyond overgrown foliage, the truck driver proceeded to execute a left turn.  As the truck was turning, the bicyclist made contact with the rear wheels of the 67 foot tractor trailer and sustained grievous injuries resulting in his death.

Plaintiffs claimed that the defendants bore liability for failing to yield to the bicyclist who had the right of way and was in a school zone.

After Mr. Vitucci’s closing statements and within just 28 minutes, the jury returned a unanimous verdict in favor of GVK’s clients, stating that the defendant driver was not negligent in the operation of his tractor trailer.

This case had been the subject of a GVK rapid emergency response led by Heather C. Ragone, which proved enormously beneficial given the early preservation of evidence, interaction with authorities on behalf of the defendants and early involvement of experts, including accident reconstructionist John Desch and forensic pathologist Michael Baden, M.D.