Complex Litigation

November 26, 2009

In a construction case involving a brain-damaged MTA worker, the Bronx Supreme Court accepted our evidence that our client was not responsible for the site and found that no further discovery was required before granting the motion.

October 08, 2009

Working closely with Boston local counsel Pete Durney and James Kerr, we successfully persuaded the trial court to exclude the testimony of plaintiff's sole liability expert on the grounds that his opinions were based upon mere conjecture, surmise and speculation which would not assist a jury. This is a potentially case-determinative blow to plaintiff's electrocution, burns and wrongful death claims against our client.

April 15, 2009

Our client, the distributor of an industrial paper plate press, was sued in connection with personal injuries allegedly sustained by the machine's operator. Although the distributor had made subsequent modifications to the machine, we secured dismissal of our client by successfully demonstrating that the modifications were not causally related to the alleged injuries.

April 03, 2009

Working closely with our local counsel, Jim Carlson and Chris Berdy of Christian & Small, LLP, we secured the dismissal of our client in an underground mining accident on the basis that plaintiff's claim against our client was unsupported by competent evidence. Another client was granted summary judgment in a steel-making equipment fatality on the grounds that plaintiff could not prove that any exception to the workers' compensation bar would apply to our client

March 01, 2009

The firm won a dismissal in a fire case involving allegations that our client defectively manufactured heat tape causing a fire that resulted in property damage to a cement facility. The Court found that the plaintiff could not meet his burden of proof and dismissed the claim against our client.

January 06, 2009

A Federal District Court accepted our argument that the third-party plaintiff in a personal injury suit arising out of a wrecker component failed to adequately support his claims against our client, a component manufacturer, with expert testimony. The Court dismissed the claims against our client with prejudice.