Category: Firm News

DSB was successful in obtaining dismissal of all claims against a Long Island municipality in a lawsuit filed by one of its employees arising out of a motor vehicle accident.  Plaintiff sustained life-altering injuries when his vehicle crashed into a chain-link fence and the metal pole attached to it impaled his face and severed his jaw, among other injuries.  The municipality owned and maintained the fence.  At the outset of the litigation, before any fact or expert discovery had been conducted, DSB affirmatively established to the plaintiff and co-defendants – through the interplay of various complex statutes and case law — that the municipality did not bear liability for the accident or the employee’s injuries.  As such, the claims and cross-claims were dismissed with prejudice against the municipality, thereby successfully avoiding the municipality from engaging in motion practice and a protracted litigation.

DSB was successful in moving to dismiss a complaint made by a former East End Village employee alleging that the that the Village discriminated against him because of a disability and on the basis of sex.  The plaintiff had previously commenced an action against the Village in federal court alleging disability discrimination, which was dismissed.  The plaintiff commended a second action in Supreme Court, Suffolk County, based upon the same series of actions that were the subject of the amended complaint in the dismissed federal action.  The second action was dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.  Then the plaintiff commenced this third action alleging additional facts of discrimination on the basis of sex.   The Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dismissed the third action holding that the court’s dismissal of the second action had preclusive effect in the third action because the plaintiff did not allege additional facts to remedy the deficiencies in his prior complaint.

DSB prevailed on another appeal before the Appellate Division, First Department.  The case was a trip and fall action where the plaintiff allegedly tripped over an asphalt patch abutting DSB’s client’s commercial storefront.  The premises owner asserted cross-claims against the commercial tenant.  The Appellate Division, First Department reversed the lower court and unanimously agreed that DSB’s client, the commercial tenant, was entitled to dismissal of the case and judgment as a matter of law.  The tenant did not perform the patchwork and was not responsible for structural repairs to the abutting sidewalk.  Accordingly, the Complaint and all cross-claims should have been dismissed against the tenant by the lower court.

DSB was successful in appealing a judgment against a Long Island municipality.   In a wrongful death action, DSB argued that the lower court erred by admitting internal rules and regulations into evidence without providing a limiting instruction to the jury.  The Appellate Division, Second Department, agreed that it was reversible error to admit the evidence without charging the jury that the rules and regulations could only be considered as some evidence of recklessness along with other factors.

DSB was successful in moving for summary judgment on behalf of a Long Island school district in a lawsuit arising from a school altercation.  Plaintiff, as guardian of a student, commenced a personal injury action for injuries sustained during a fight with another student which occurred on school grounds.  The Supreme Court, Suffolk County found that DSB affirmatively established that the school did not have sufficient notice of any prior incidents between the combatants such that the altercation could have been anticipated.  Furthermore, the incident occurred suddenly and therefore no reasonable level of supervision could have prevented it. DSB’s motion for summary judgment was granted in its entirety.

DSB was successful in moving to dismiss a personal injury action brought by an injured motorist against a Long Island school district and its employee who was driving a district vehicle in the course of his employment.  Plaintiff failed to file a Notice of Claim with the school district regarding the claims and after the expiration of the statute of limitations, DSB moved to dismiss on that basis.   The Supreme Court, Suffolk County agreed with DSB that the action had to be dismissed in its entirety.

DSB was successful in moving to dismiss a landowner’s federal complaint alleging that an East End Village violated the landowner’s Fourth Amendment right against illegal search and seizure, Fifth Amendment right against the taking of property, Eight Amendment right against excessive fines, Fourteenth Amendment right of equal protection under the law and common law right against trespass.  The District Court for the Eastern District of New York dismissed the constitutional and common law claims against the Village finding that the landowner failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

DSB obtained an Order awarding summary judgment in favor of an East End Town confirming its continued ownership of a disputed parcel of land.  Plaintiff filed the action in 2010, claiming that he had acquired a neighboring municipal lot through adverse possession based upon blocking a beach access road with shrubbery and using it as a private driveway for a number of years, arguing that the Town had abandoned or never properly opened the unnamed beach access road that had been at the location since at least 1940.  The Court previously declined to dismiss the action in 2017, finding that more discovery was needed, but after further proceedings and motion practice has now dismissed the case, explaining that while roadway easements on otherwise private property can be abandoned, it is well-established that government-owned land that is held for a public purpose cannot be adversely possessed.

DSB prevailed on appeal in a New York State Labor Law construction accident case.  Plaintiff in the action alleged that he was injured falling from a ladder while installing cable services for a tenant.  The Appellate Division for the Second Department unanimously agreed that DSB established its prima facie entitlement to judgment by establishing that the requisite nexus between the defendant and the plaintiff’s work did not exist.  The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s order granting  summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s New York State Labor Law claims.