Author: admin

DSB was successful on a motion to renew a prior summary judgment motion on a Kings County Labor Law case. Plaintiff allegedly fell from an extension ladder while performing exterior façade work at our client’s home. Plaintiff claimed the accident occurred because the extension ladder failed and collapsed. As a result of the accident, plaintiff underwent had an L1-L2 laminectomy, and a T11-L4 posterior fusion with instrumentation. This firm had previously filed a summary judgment motion before depositions, the result of which was a dismissal of the Labor Law section 240 and 241 claims based on the homeowner’s exception. However, based on an affidavit of plaintiff that swore our client owned the ladder, the common law and Labor Law section 200 aspects of the motion were denied. During plaintiff’s deposition, he admitted that he never read the affidavit, which was in English, and that the basis of the affidavit was not his own knowledge. He also admitted at the deposition that there was no indication the ladder would fail before the accident. After the deposition, we filed a motion to renew, which was granted and dismissed the remainder of the claims based on lack of notice of any defect.

DSB obtained a dismissal of third-party claims against a snow removal contractor in a case involving personal injuries alleged by plaintiff while traversing her employer’s “side drive up” for an ATM machine. DSB’s expert, a forensic meteorologist, through certified weather records, photographs and deposition testimony was able to prove that it had only stopped snowing about an hour and a half before Plaintiff’s accident. The Court held that the alleged hazardous condition that caused plaintiff’s accident resulted from a “storm in progress” and the third party defendant, snow removal company, did not have an adequate period of time following the storm to remedy the hazardous conditions.

DSB obtained an Order upholding the validity of a local law through which a Long Island town re-zoned five acres of town-owned land for use as affordable housing. Among other things, locals who challenged the measure, argued that the land had been implicitly dedicated as a public park and thus, under the public trust doctrine, required State approval before being put to a different purpose. Initially, the Court issued a temporary restraining Order preventing the Town from moving forward with considering bids from developers; but, after careful consideration, the Court agreed that the Town was able to re-zone the parcel for affordable housing without needing to request State approval and that the local law had been validly passed by the Town Board.

DSB obtained an order partially awarding summary judgment in favor of a real estate brokerage in a contract/commission dispute. After the client received a 6-figure commission from the sale of a commercial property, the prior owner of an office it had acquired claimed that even though they were not involved in the deal they were entitled to the commission based upon an argument that the listing violated a covenant not to compete. The Court found at least a technical violation of the non-compete clause, but dismissed the action to the extent seeking disgorgement of the commission itself and ruled that the plaintiff’s damages, if any, would be limited to provable lost profits caused by the breach.

DSB was successful in moving for summary judgment to dismiss a claim for strict liability predicated on a dog bite. DSB established that its client neither owned nor controlled the dog in question. The Supreme Court, Suffolk County, found that DSB’s client could not be liable under a theory of strict liability for a dog that she neither owned nor controlled. Accordingly, the complaint was dismissed.