Author: admin

DSB succeeded in obtaining summary judgment in Supreme Court, Queens County, dismissing all third-party claims in a Labor Law construction accident case. Third-party plaintiff/general contractor filed contractual and common law claims against our client seeking reimbursement and attorney’s fees. The general contractor claimed that the accident occurred when plaintiff fell while standing on a gangbox allegedly owned by our client. The Court noted that the evidence that plaintiff was standing on the gangbox was speculative and not based on any first-hand knowledge, despite a statement in the accident report. Further, the court found the evidence showed plaintiff fell from a ladder onto the gangbox. We also established that there was no evidence that the gangbox was owned by the client, and even assuming it was, the client was not a proper Labor Law defendant and did not create a dangerous condition. Finally, we established that the accident did not arise from our work, and therefore, the indemnity clause was not triggered.

Partner Dave Pallai secured a defense verdict in Supreme Court, Nassau County on behalf of a local municipality. Plaintiff claimed to have been injured as the result of a motor vehicle accident with a municipal snow plow during the course of an ongoing storm. Although the jury found that the municipal vehicle did not properly yield upon entering the intersection where the accident occurred, the failure to do so was not “reckless” as required by Sec. 1103(b) of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, thus exempting the defendant from liability.

In commercial litigation involving contractual liability claims, DSB obtained a $4,399,411.62 judgment in favor of our client. The client invested in a tomato importing business, but after growing the business substantially over a period of years, the other owners and the distributor in Italy tried to cut him out of the business. The judgment resolves state courts claims as between the individuals, while Federal litigation against the Italian distributor remains ongoing.

DSB was successful in moving for summary judgment on behalf of a school district located on Long Island. Plaintiff was allegedly injured while officiating a middle school football game. The Supreme Court of Suffolk County found that DSB affirmatively established that plaintiff assumed the risk of coming into contact with a player during the football game. Accordingly, DSB’s motion for summary judgment was granted in its entirety.

DSB was successful in obtaining summary judgment dismissing a complaint and all cross claims against a Queens County residential homeowner involving a fall on a raised sidewalk. In opposition, plaintiff argued the homeowner was liable and created the dangerous condition when they previously installed a new sidewalk in the area where plaintiff testified she fell. Within plaintiff’s opposition papers, plaintiff failed to support their contentions with any evidence. DSB successfully argued that the homeowner did not create the dangerous condition by installing a new sidewalk before this accident and further argued the homeowner was afforded the exception under the Administrative Code of City of NY §7-210.

DSB obtained the dismissal of a personal injury action brought by someone who crashed their boat and tried to blame an East End town by claiming it had been negligent in the placement and maintenance of buoys. The boat accident resulted in one fatality and several injuries, prompting multiple lawsuits, including one by the operator of the vessel against the Town. The operator removed all of the personal injury cases to federal court, and then when the Town argued that the removal was improper, they filed a federal admiralty proceeding — known as a limitation of liability action — seeking a declaration that they were not at fault, which resulted in all other proceedings being stayed. Eventually, the Town succeeded having the operator’s admiralty claims dismissed, and the Federal court sought to re-engage the parties with respect to whether the personal injury actions should stay in federal court or be remanded to state court. Upon consideration, after the operator did not respond to the court’s inquiries regarding that issue, the federal court remanded the other personal injury actions back to state court, but ordered that the boat operator’s personal injury action be dismissed for failure to prosecute.

DSB Obtained an Order from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirming the dismissal of constitutional claims against a Long Island town. A real estate developer was cited for departing from their approved plans, and challenged whether it was proper to issue a stop work order. It brought an action in state court seeking relief under Article 78, the State’s administrative review procedure, and also seeking declaratory relief challenging portions of the Town Code as unconstitutional; they sought to amend their complaint in State Court to allege, among other things, a claim that the Town had violated the Equal Protection Clause. The State Court denied the request to amend the complaint and dismissed the proceeding. The developer then sued in Federal Court, arguing that its equal protection claim and other constitutional arguments had not been decided by the State Court. After careful review, the Federal District Court dismissed the action, explaining that it was barred by the prior state court action. On review, the Second Circuit agreed, explaining that while ordinarily administrative review in a state court under Article 78 does not automatically bar a plaintiff from filing related constitutional claims, because the plaintiff had alleged and the state court had addressed some constitutional claims in addition to seeking administrative review, that was a full and final determination of the dispute, and the plaintiff could not file a subsequent federal action based upon the principal of res judicata.

DSB won an appeal affirming the dismissal of a civil rights complaint against a Long Island School District. A teacher’s aid alleged that she was retaliated against based upon her advocacy for a special education student. The complaint was dismissed before the trial court, and the teacher’s aid appealed. On appeal, the Appellate Division found that the complaint had correctly been dismissed as, among other things, the teacher’s aid was not disabled herself, and the advocacy she described in the complaint was not opposing or protesting discrimination against the disabled student.