In a matter pending in Supreme Court, Bronx County, Andrew C. Kaye obtained summary judgment on behalf of a commercial trash removal company and its driver in a motor vehicle accident case where plaintiff was alleging a traumatic brain injury.

Plaintiff alleged that on May 1, 2007 he was an un-seatbelted back seat passenger in a taxi that was struck in the rear by defendant’s commercial garbage truck.  Plaintiff claims his head struck the partition resulting in, inter alia, a traumatic brain injury.

Plaintiff was represented by a law firm that specializes in prosecuting traumatic brain injuries. Knowing therefore that plaintiff’s counsel likely had the doctors and affidavits necessary to create a question of fact on the medicine, we approached the motion from a different angle, arguing plaintiff lacked evidence a traumatic brain injury contemporaneous with the accident.  Since there were no records to which plaintiff’s experts could point to suggest otherwise, plaintiff was not able to oppose the motion and the Court granted summary judgment.  There were no settlement discussions during the pendency of the motion. However, before making the motion, plaintiff’s demand was “seven figures”.

James Deegan obtained a defense verdict in a work-related construction accident incident involving a trip/slip and fall case in Supreme New York. Plaintiff claimed to slip and fall over carpet tiles strewn across a pathway allegedly left by our client, the carpet tile installer, at a USB Bank under renovation resulting in reconstructive shoulder surgery and single level fusion to the lumbar spine. Plaintiff also alleged permanent disability and lost earnings for over 25 years. Plaintiff’s demand was $5 Million, non-negotiable.

The case was bifurcated due to the fact that a jury could not be empaneled because no jurors were willing to sit for over three (3) weeks. Bifurcating the trial reduced the trial to a few days, making it easier to empanel a jury.
Plaintiff testified that he was vacuuming the second floor while he slipped over loose carpet tiles in the hallway, causing him to fall backwards. During cross-examination Mr. Deegan was able to establish that Plaintiff never looked up or behind himself while vacuuming and had Plaintiff looked to his rear at any time as he vacuumed he would have seen the alleged obstruction without falling.

The jury found the carpet tiler negligent, but found no proximate cause. The jury also found in favor of defendants on the Labor Law section 241 (6) violations alleged.

Kenneth S. Merber, Esq. successfully defended his restaurant client in a slip/trip and fall case in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County.

The claimant, a celebrity and famous collector of rare Asian art, fell while exiting the restaurant sustaining open complex comminuted and avulsion fractures requiring an open reduction and internal fixation with the insertion of multiple plates and screws. Plaintiff also alleged she suffered severe psychiatric injuries and the loss of enjoyment of the pleasures of her life asserting she is no longer able to travel to lecture on, teach, purchase and collect art, her only true passion.

Plaintiff requested that the jury award $7 million. The case was tried for more than 3 weeks before the Hon. David Cohen. The case was strategically defended and fought to optimize plaintiff’s failure to name the premises owner / landlord in this case.

Moreover, focus was given to the plaintiff’s lack of credibility and failure to comply with medical instructions to limit her own damages, both physical and psychological. The “millennial jury” returned a defense verdict after 4 hours of deliberation.

In a matter pending in Supreme Court, New York county, Andrew C. Kaye obtained summary judgment on behalf of a snow removal company in a slip and fall case.

Plaintiff alleged that on December 28, 2011, he was coming out of a bank when he slipped and fell in an area of the sidewalk that was not shoveled, despite the presence of a nearby path.  Plaintiff alleged the snow removal company failed to properly clear or salt the path, arguing therefore, that it did not matter that he chose to walk in an area that was not shoveled. As a result of the accident and resultant injuries, plaintiff claims he lost his moving business and sought more than $1,500,000 in damages.

Because the bank had cross-claims against the snow removal company, Mr. Kaye sought to offer an argument that went beyond an Espinal defense, and using the precise language of plaintiff’s deposition testimony, Mr. Kaye developed an argument that plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of his accident. The Court agreed, noting plaintiff’s claims about the condition of the path were red herrings and that no reasonable fact finder would conclude defendants were negligent. The Court also granted summary judgment in favor of the snow removal company dismissing the bank’s third-party claims for breach of contract.

On February 13, 2017, GVK Partner Matthew Levy obtained summary judgment dismissing Plaintiff’s Complaint, in its entirety, in a premises liability case pending before Justice Barbara Jaffe in the Supreme Court, New York County.  We represented the owner and management company of the building.

The Plaintiff, a 63 year old man, claimed that on August 23, 2012, between 6 pm and 7 pm, he slipped and fell on a puddle of water in the hallway on the 7^th and highest floor of defendants’ building.  As a result of the accident, Plaintiff claimed to have suffered a torn meniscus to his left knee requiring arthroscopic surgery.  Plaintiff also claimed an exacerbation of left shoulder injuries, which required him to undergo arthroscopic surgery.

Plaintiff testified that it had rained hard that day between 3 pm and 4 pm.  After he slipped, Plaintiff touched the ground, felt that it was wet and saw a three to four foot long puddle of water on the floor.  He did not know how long the water had been present on the floor, but believed that it had come from a leak in the ceiling as he had seen a water stain on the ceiling and felt a few drops of water fall on him.  We hired a certified weather expert to establish that it had not rained at all on August 23, 2012.

As part of our investigation into this accident, we also contacted the non-party security guard who was working in the building’s lobby at the time of the accident.  We obtained a copy of the log book entries for August 23, 2012.  The security guard, who appeared for a deposition at our request, testified that during his hourly inspections of the entire building that afternoon and evening, he did not observe evidence of water leaking from the 7^th floor ceiling before, at the time of, or after the accident. The security guard also did not document any water at the location of the accident during his inspections.

The Court held that the evidence submitted by the Defendants in the form of the routine inspections conducted by the security company throughout the day demonstrated that the Defendants did not have actual or constructive notice of the water on the floor.

In Esen v. Narian, Partner Matthew Vitucci and Appellate Counsel Kimberly Ricciardi successfully appealed the denial of a motion for summary judgment on behalf of Trans Express, a company providing shuttle bus service to and from Resorts World Casino. The plaintiff sustained significant injuries when he was struck by a car as he attempted to cross a street near a marked pedestrian crosswalk at the casino, and commenced an action against the driver of the vehicle which struck him as well as Trans Express, which owned a shuttle bus that was stopped at a stop sign in the adjacent lane of the roadway.

The trial court denied a motion for summary judgment on behalf of Trans Express, based on its finding that issues of fact were present regarding whether the Trans Express driver, in “waving the plaintiff on”, negligently exposed the plaintiff to danger. GVK appealed the trial court’s decision, arguing that the driver who struck the plaintiff had an independent duty to stop at the stop sign in his lane of traffic, and that his failure to stop at the stop sign constituted an unforeseeable, superseding cause of the accident which severed any causal nexus between the plaintiff’s injuries and any alleged negligence of the Trans Express driver in “waving the plaintiff on”.

In a unanimous decision, the Appellate Division, Second Department agreed with GVK’s argument, holding that, “[E]ven if the plaintiff’s claim that he relied upon the bus driver’s wave to cross the roadway before he crossed the street is true, [the defendant driver’s] unforeseeable failure to stop when approaching a crosswalk marked with a stop sign, in violation of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, constituted an intervening and superseding cause that entitled Trans Express to a judgment of dismissal as a matter of law”.

To view our official GVK Appellate Win announcement click here.

Continuing GVK’s record of superior results for our clients, New York partner Alana J. Szemer recently won a motion for summary judgment on the issue of trivial defect, a defense notoriously difficult to prove.

The plaintiff alleged she tripped and fell on a misleveled section of pavement near gas pumps at a gas station. Utilizing prompt investigation of the accident site with an expert engineer, Ms. Szemer obtained persuasive evidence that convinced the court that the alleged defect was not actionable as a matter of law. The case was thus dismissed on its merits.

In keeping align with GVK’s ethos of effective and efficient litigation handling, New Jersey Partner Yolanda Ayala, was successful in getting a dog bite case with allegations of serious injuries to Plantiff’s leg dismissed by Judge Mega in Union County, NJ Superior Court, without the typical litigation costs associated with lengthy discovery and within 90 days of assignment.  Ms. Ayala proves to her clients that it is beneficial to act fast and that utilizing an alternative method of litigation handling will result in saving both time and money.

In lieu of an Answer, Ms. Ayala interposed a Motion to Dismiss upon the basis that her clients were immune from liability based upon the Workers’ Compensation law.  The Third-Party Plaintiff/dog owner initially argued that the defendant, a Home Health Aide, improperly released the dog from the basement against the owner’s directives, which, in turn caused the dog to attack the Aide’s supervisor who had gone outside to provide supplies to the Aide.

However, when confronted with deposition testimony that the Third-Party Plaintiff herself admitted that she had opened the basement door, the Third-Party Plaintiff then claimed that the Aide’s act of opening the front door to the home fell outside of the scope of her employment, and therefore prevented the Aide from obtaining the benefit of the workers’ compensation bar. In reply, Ms. Ayala noted that the Aide opened the front door in order to retrieve the supplies needed for the client, which was clearly “within the scope of employment”. The Judge agreed and the matter was dismissed against the firm’s client.

In a matter tried before Judge Rouse in Supreme Court, Suffolk County on July 25th, 2017, Matthew J. Vitucci obtained a defense verdict on behalf of a bus corporation in a trip and fall case.

On October 11, 2005, the plaintiff, a bus driver for third party defendant tripped and fell over a raised “ball” of asphalt in a parking facility in Smithtown New York. As a result of the fall, the plaintiff sustained a fractured clavicle, a labral tear and a rotator cuff tear that was treated via multiple arthroscopic procedures. Plaintiff eventually developed a “frozen shoulder” and claimed she was unable to work as a bus driver. Plaintiff sought a recovery of $500,000.

Plaintiff claimed that both the defendant, landlord of the bus facility and the third party defendant bore liability for either creating the defect in the parking lot or for allowing it to exist for so long a period of time, and that the defendant and third party defendant had notice of the condition and should be held liable for failing to correct it.

After Mr. Vitucci’s closing statements and within one hour, the jury returned a verdict in favor of GVK’s clients, stating that neither defendant nor third party defendant had notice of the defect’s existence.

To view Mr. Vitucci’s official GVK Trial Win announcement click here.

On May 25, 2017, Chad Sjoquist obtained a unanimous defense verdict on behalf of a cooperative apartment building in a Labor Law 240(1) case. The case was tried before Justice Frank P. Nervo in the Supreme Court, New York County.

The plaintiff was a temporary worker for a small painting company that was retained by an apartment owner in our client’s building to repaint portions of the apartment. The plaintiff alleged that he fell from a ladder while sanding a closet ceiling. He claimed lumbar and cervical injuries with the need for a future surgery and initially demanded more than $2 million to settle the case. In addition to his alleged pain and suffering, the plaintiff claimed more than $400,000 in past and future medical expenses.

During the trial, Mr. Sjoquist raised significant questions regarding the plaintiff’s credibility. There were no other witnesses to the alleged accident, and Mr. Sjoquist used inconsistencies between the plaintiff’s deposition and trial testimony to convince a jury that the plaintiff could not prove that the alleged accident occurred or that he fell in the manner that he claimed.

To view Chad’s official GVK Trial Win announcement click here.