Author: admin

DSB was successful in obtaining summary judgment on a defamation claim brought in Supreme Court, Suffolk County, against a school district arising out of the district’s internal investigation into a verbal altercation between a board of education member and an assistant football coach.  The trial court agreed with the district’s arguments that the complaint failed to adequately allege defamation, and there is no cognizable claim for negligent investigation.  The complaint against the school district was dismissed in its entirety.

DSB was successful in having a complaint dismissed against its client, a hair salon, in a claim by a  patron who allegedly fell due to a defective floormat at or near the doorway of the storefront salon.   DSB succeeded in proving that the owner of the hair salon was free from liability because the floormat was not in a dangerous condition at the time of the accident.

Supreme Court, Richmond County, granted DSB’s motion for summary judgment dismissing all claims and cross-claims against DSB’s client, a homeowner in Staten Island, for an accident that arose from a trip and fall on a sidewalk. Plaintiff and codefendants argued that despite the applicability of the homeowner’s exception under Administrative Code Section 7-210, there were questions of fact related to whether DSB’s client had notice of the defect and whether the client created the defect. DSB argued that notice is irrelevant when the homeowner has no duty under Administrative Code Section 7-210 and DSB affirmatively established on the motion that the client did not create the condition. The court agreed with DSB and dismissed the case.

The Supreme Court, Kings County, granted DSB’s motion for summary judgment in a New York State Labor Law construction accident case. Plaintiff in the action alleged that he fell from a ladder at a construction site and sustained a fracture of the medial malleolus that required surgery, traumatic brain injury resulting in 100% disability, a tear of the supraspinatus tendon requiring surgery, a tear of the patellar articular cartilage of the right knee and a tear of the posterior horn of the medial meniscus, ankle arthroscopy, synovectomy and debridement, talonavicular fusion and removal of hardware, and derangement of the cervical and lumbar spine.

The court found that the indemnification provision contained in an agreement with the condominium was void as against public policy under the New York General Obligations Law. There was no other basis for liability of DSB’s client and the case was dismissed.

DSB successfully moved for summary judgment on behalf of a parent of a driver involved in a motor vehicle accident. The firm was able to demonstrate that our client did not own or operate the vehicle involved in the accident and therefore, liability under VTL 388 or the common law principle of negligent entrustment could not attach. The Complaint was dismissed prior to commencement of discovery.

DSB was successful in moving to dismiss a personal injury action on behalf of a homeowner on Long Island. DSB argued that the Court lacked personal jurisdiction over the homeowner because the plaintiff failed to properly serve the homeowner with a copy of the summons and complaint within 120-days after the commencement of the action and did not move to extend the time in which to do so. The Supreme Court, Queens County, agreed with DSB and dismissed the action in its entirety.

Justin M. Rowe was elected Equity Partner of the law firm. Justin’s hard work and commitment to our clients as well as his trustworthiness made the decision easy for the partners. Justin will continue to try complex litigation matters for the law firm.

Partner Justin Rowe obtained a defense verdict in Supreme Court, Queens County. Plaintiff, a minor, sustained a tibial fracture on an inflatable slide rented by our client. Plaintiff’s theory was that DSB’s client provided negligent supervision over the children using the slide at the party. The defense was that the supervision was adequate, and that the accident occurred so quickly that no level of supervision could have prevented it from occurring. The jury agreed with DSB’s position, and unanimously returned a verdict in 20 minutes finding that DSB’s client was not negligent.