Category: Firm News

DSB obtained an order granting summary judgment and declaratory relief in favor of a Long Island town on a land use issue. A property owner challenged whether agricultural labor housing was prohibited under the terms of a conservation easement that had been granted in favor of the Town in connection with subdividing a parcel many years ago. The easement prohibited residential structures, but the property owner argued that agricultural labor housing, as part of farm operations and in light of various state and local laws and policies intended to preserve and promote farming, should be considered an agricultural rather than residential structure. After reviewing the language of the specific easement at issue and applicable law, the Court agreed with the Town that, even if accessory to an agricultural use, agricultural labor housing would be a residential structure prohibited by the easement.

On September 16, 2025, DSB obtained summary judgment in favor of a Long Island town, dismissing a selective enforcement claim against it. Following years of summonses for fire safety and other issues at a motel that had been converted into longterm rentals, the landlord sued the Town, accusing it of violating the Equal Protection Clause by engaging in aggressive code enforcement efforts against their property while failing to issue similar violations for other properties where the tenants were not primarily Hispanic. The building burned down while the action was pending, but no-one was injured and Plaintiff argued that this was irrelevant and persisted with the claim. Following discovery, the Court granted our motion to dismiss the case. Among other things, there was no evidence of discrimination, and there was no evidence that the properties that the plaintiff claimed were being treated more favorably had similar pervasive code violations and hazardous conditions.

DSB successfully moved for summary judgment on behalf of a New York City homeowner who claimed to have tripped and fallen on the sidewalk in front of the Manhattan home. Defendants established through the use of an expert surveyor that the sidewalk location involved in the accident was not located in front of their home and as such that they did not owe plaintiff a duty of care to maintain the concrete sidewalk. The Court also held that the defendants did not create the alleged defect, and that there was no special use made.

DSB secured a dismissal for their client in a New York Labor Law case. We represented a third-party defendant, and moved to dismiss all claims seeking indemnity and contribution against the client. Prior to filing a motion to dismiss, the third-party plaintiff failed to provide discovery in the direct action and its answer was eventually struck. We argued that once the third-party answer was struck, all allegations against the direct defendant/third-party defendant are deemed admitted. Those admissions of fault by the third-party defendant vitiated the indemnification agreement and undermined its claims for common law indemnity and contribution, i.e. a third-party plaintiff cannot seek to be indemnified or seek contribution for its own acts of negligence. As such, the Court dismiss the third-party action.

DSB obtained summary judgment in Supreme Court, Kings County, on a New York State Labor Law claim involving an amputation. Plaintiff was injured while moving a metal plate with his coworker who was operating a lift when the plate suddenly dropped onto the plaintiff. DSB represented the owner of the property where the accident occurred, and argued successfully that plaintiff was not a member of the protected class of workers covered by the Labor Law, and that he was performing routine maintenance in the yard.

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.