DSB won a motion for summary judgment on behalf of a commercial tenant where the plaintiff tripped and fell through a cellar door located on the sidewalk abutting the commercial tenant’s leasehold. DSB argued, and the Supreme Court of Kings County agreed, that the commercial tenant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law where it neither owned the abutting property nor created the allegedly hazardous condition. Accordingly, it did not owe a duty of care to the plaintiff.
DSB was successful in moving for summary judgment on behalf of an eastern Long Island Town. Plaintiff alleged that town police falsely arrested and maliciously prosecuted her for Stalking in the Third Degree in violation of her civil rights. Plaintiff alleged that the complaining victim lied to police, and therefore, her arrest was wrongful. DSB successfully defeated plaintiff’s claims by affirmatively establishing that there was probable cause for her arrest and prosecution because (i) police obtained a valid arrest warrant, and further (ii) police had no reason to doubt the credibility of the complaining victim. DSB successfully established that police acted reasonably at all times, and thus, plaintiff’s arrest was constitutionally valid. Moreover, plaintiff’s arrest was not made pursuant to any alleged unlawful policy or practice of the Town. As a result, plaintiff voluntarily discontinued the action with prejudice and released the town from all liability arising out of her arrest and prosecution.
DSB was successful in moving for summary judgment on behalf of a school district located on Long Island. Plaintiff, as guardian of an infant, commenced a personal injury action for injuries sustained by the infant while attending carpentry class at an off-site location. The Supreme Court of Suffolk County found that DSB affirmatively established that it neither controlled nor operated the carpentry facility; accordingly, it did not owe a duty to plaintiff. DSB’s motion for summary judgment was granted in its entirety.
DSB, on behalf of a Zoning Board of Appeals of an eastern Long Island town, successfully appealed from an order annulling the denial of an area variance for a swimming pool patio that violated set back requirements. The Appellate Division, Second Department agreed that the Zoning Board’s denial had rational basis and was not arbitrary nor capricious.
DSB was successful in federal court, in the Eastern District of New York, in obtaining dismissal of all claims against an east end Town and several of its police officers in an action brought by plaintiff pursuant to, inter alia, 42 U.S.C. §1983 alleging several constitutional violations. The federal court rejected plaintiff’s claims of an equal protection violation, racial discrimination, conspiracy, and Monell liability, as well as several state law claims, arising from plaintiff’s report to the police department of an alleged race-based crime committed by plaintiff’s private employer. The complaint against the Town and its employees was dismissed in its entirety.
(A “Decision of Interest” in the New York Law Journal, Volume 264—No. 32, dated 08/18/20)
DSB was successful in moving for summary judgment on behalf of a Suffolk County homeowner. Plaintiff tripped and fell on a step while delivering food to the owner’s property for an event. The Supreme Court, New York County, determined that DSB established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the step in question was not inherently dangerous to one reasonably using his or her senses. DSB also argued that plaintiff was unab le to identify what defect caused his injury. The Court granted DSB’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed plaintiff’s complaint.
DSB was successful in moving to dismiss the complaint on behalf of a Suffolk County school district. Plaintiff, brought an action on behalf of his minor son who has special needs, alleging that the school district discriminated against plaintiff’s son violated his son’s civil rights under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act; Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; the New York State Human Rights Law; and 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 by refusing to allow him to serve as a volunteer in the school district’s summer recreation program. DSB argued that the plaintiff’s son could not be accommodated as a volunteer absent fundamentally changing the nature of the activity itself. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York converted DSB’s motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment and granted DSB’s motion and dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice.
(A “Decision of Interest” in the New York Law Journal, Volume 264—No. 32, dated 08/14/20)
DSB was successful in moving to dismiss the complaint on behalf of a Suffolk County school district. Plaintiff, brought an action on behalf of his 16-year-old son who has developmental disabilities, alleging that the school district violated his son’s due process rights because it opposed plaintiff’s request to have a non-party entity film one of plaintiff’s son’s educational hearings and the Independent Hearing Officer’s ruled not to permit video or audio recording of the hearing. Plaintiff initiated an administrative proceeding, but subsequently voluntarily withdrew it before a hearing was held. DSB moved to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint arguing that plaintiff’s voluntary withdrawal of the administrative complaint rendered the action moot. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted DSB’s motion and dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice, determining that the action is moot.
DSB was successful in moving for summary judgment in an action for personal injuries on behalf of a subcontractor. Plaintiff sustained injuries as a result of a construction worker vacuuming debris that blew into her face on May 31, 2016. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, determined that DSB established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the subcontractor did not perform any work at the subject store before the accident, and was contracted to perform work on or about September 12, 2016. The Court granted DSB’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed plaintiff’s complaint.
DSB was successful in moving for summary judgment on behalf of a municipality on Long Island. Plaintiff commenced a subrogation action to recoup losses that it paid to its insured as a result of a car accident. The District Court of Suffolk County found that DSB affirmatively demonstrated that the police officer involved in the car accident with plaintiff’s subrogor was engaged in emergency operations. Pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104(e) the driver of an emergency vehicle engaged in emergency operations is entitled to certain privileges and will only be liable where its conduct amounts to a reckless disregard for the safety of others. The Court determined that DSB established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law and granted DSB’s motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s complaint in its entirety.