KENNETH E. PITCOFF is the managing partner of MDAFP’s public entity department.
He specializes in defending municipalities in high-profile civil rights, torts and
employment related cases. He has successfully defended municipalities in excessive force
cases, several of which have involved police shootings and Taser use, as well as police false
arrest claims. Mr. Pitcoff is proficient at crisis handling and advising his clients how best to
communicate with the media. He works closely with municipalities to limit their potential
exposure to a wide variety of lawsuits through education and training. Mr. Pitcoff also
specializes in defending high exposure personal injury cases where catastrophic injuries
are alleged. He has tried more than sixty cases in the State and Federal Courts, almost all of
which have resulted in defendants’ verdicts or verdicts or settlements that were well below
the offers made prior to trial. Mr. Pitcoff is a frequent lecturer on immunities available to municipalities and his
articles are regularly published in the New York State Law Journal. Mr. Pitcoff had
the honor on two occasions of being named National Attorney of the Year by insurance
companies. PRIOR EXPERIENCE Robert P. Sweeney & Associates (corporation counsel for State Farm Insurance) AWARDS In 2017, Mr. Pitcoff was named Attorney of the Year by Tokio Marine, Public Risk Group, for his work defending municipalities. In 2011, Mr. Pitcoff was named Attorney of the Year by Midwest Claims, a division of Houston Casualty Corporation, for his work defending municipalities. REPRESENTATIVE EXPERIENCE - Parker v. County of Westchester- Plaintiff sued a Westchester County Police Sergeant for
excessive force and false arrest when a County Police Sergeant struck him in the eye and
arrested him for disorderly conduct. Mr. Pitcoff successfully argued that the force used was appropriate due to the Plaintiff's continued disregard of the directives of the Sergeant and
Plaintiff making physical contact with him. The jury rendered a defendants' verdict. - Depeche v. County of Westchester- Plaintiff sued a Westchester County Police Officer for
excessive force based on the Officer's use of a Taser on the Plaintiff. Mr. Pitcoff successfully
argued that the use of the Taser was reasonable under the circumstances. Specifically, it
was argued that Plaintiff ignored several warnings to step back away from the crime scene
and then lunged forward at the officer, necessitating the use of the Taser. The jury rendered
a defendants' verdict. - Laroche v. Town of Mt. Pleasant- Plaintiff sued a Town of Mt. Pleasant Police Officer for
assault and excessive force when the officer pointed his gun at the plaintiff. Mr. Pitcoff
successfully argued that the "force" used was reasonable under the circumstances.
Specifically, Mr. Pitcoff argued that it was reasonable for an officer to believe that there was
an active shooter present at the scene and, thus, the pointing of his gun at the Plaintiff was reasonable. The jury rendered a defendants' verdict. - Garcia v. County of Westchester- Plaintiff sued a County of Westchester Sergeant for excessive
force and false arrest when the Sergeant allegedly threw him against a wall and arrested
him for disorderly conduct without probable cause. Mr. Pitcoff successfully argued that the
Sergeant used only the amount of force that was reasonable under the circumstances and
that probable cause existed for the arrest, irrespective of the fact that the criminal charges
were ultimately dismissed. The jury rendered a defendants' verdict. - Romanick v. Town of Mt. Pleasant- Plaintiff sued a Town of Mt. Pleasant Police Officer alleging excessive force when the officer purportedly tackled the plaintiff without cause, as well as false arrest. Mr. Pitcoff successfully argued that the force was reasonable, and that the incident
did not occur the way the Plaintiff claimed it did. Specifically, Mr. Pitcoff argued that Plaintiff
refused to obey the Officer's commands and that the force used in placing the Plaintiff into
custody was reasonable. Mr. Pitcoff also persuasively argued that there was probable cause
for the Plaintiff's arrest, even though the charges against him were ultimately dismissed. The
jury rendered a defendants' verdict. - Hinds v. Town of Mt. Pleasant- Plaintiff sued a Town of Mt. Pleasant Police Officer for excessive
force and false arrest. At trial, Mr. Pitcoff was compelled to concede that there had been a false
arrest but argued that Plaintiff had only been in custody for a few hours. Mr. Pitcoff further
argued that the force used was reasonable under the circumstances and not excessive. The
jury rendered a verdict against the Police Officer for $50,000. It should be noted that an Offer
of Judgment was served pursuant to Rule 68 in the amount of $100,000 on behalf of the
defendants on the day that the answer was served The offer was rejected by the Plaintiff.
Given the same, Plaintiff was unable to recover attorney's fees which may have reached
$1,000,000. In addition, the defendants were able to recover a portion of their litigation
costs from Plaintiff. - Gallo v. Town of Mt. Pleasant- Plaintiff sued a Town of Mt. Pleasant Police Officer for excessive
force and assault when the Officer pointed his gun at the Plaintiff. Plaintiff alleged to have
suffered PTSD because of the incident. Mr. Pitcoff successfully argued that the Police
Officer was justified in pointing his gun at the plaintiff given the circumstances that existed.
The jury rendered a defendants' verdict. Monroe v. Town of Haverstraw – Plaintiff claimed that Officer Viohl used excessive force with
respect to effectuating his arrest. Specifically, it was claimed that the police officer
Tasered the plaintiff five times and threw him against a police car causing physical injuries.
Mr. Pitcoff was able to convince a jury that the use of the Taser was necessary due to plaintiff’s
failure to comply with the officer's commands. He successfully argued that the officer
had properly followed the Department’s use of force continuum. He was also able to
convince the jury that plaintiff’s claim of being thrown against the hood of the police vehicle
was a fabrication. The jury issued a defendant’s verdict. Noel v. Incorporated Village of Lake Success - Mr. Pitcoff obtained a defendant's verdict
in a matter in which plaintiff claimed that the Village and individual defendants
unlawfully discriminated against him in violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. Section 1981, and
Section 290 of the New York State Human Rights Law. Specifically, plaintiff alleged
that the discrimination stemmed from a two week suspension issued by the Village as a
result of his alleged failure to report a gasoline spill on a golf course in violation of the
Village's rules. Plaintiff claimed that the reason for the suspension provided by the Village
was pretextual, and that the real reason for the suspension was his race and national origin
and that it was in retaliation for a prior discrimination complaint that he filed. Plaintiff
sought to recover back-pay, emotional damages and punitive damages. Wall v. Town of Niskayuna - Plaintiff Police Sergeant alleged gender discrimination in
not being promoted to lieutenant and retaliation in not being promoted to detective
sergeant. Mr. Pitcoff obtained a defendant's verdict at trial. - Techon Contracting v. Village of Lynbrook - Mr. Pitcoff was lead defense counsel in a
multi-million dollar breach of contract case which was discontinued against Mr. Pitcoff's
client following a six week trial. - Kravtsov v. Town of Greenburgh - Mr. Pitcoff obtained a defendant's verdict where plaintiff
claimed that he was discriminated against in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. - DiBartolo v. Town of Yorktown - Mr. Pitcoff obtained dismissal of this defamation claim
brought by two plaintiffs against the Town of Yorktown and Town supervisor based on
executive privilege. - Croci v. Town of Haverstraw - Mr. Pitcoff obtained dismissal of this claim as against the
Town of Haverstraw where plaintiff claimed that the Town violated the New York State
Executive Law as a result of the Town's alleged failure to properly investigate and respond to
plaintiff's complains of sexual harassment by a co-worker. - Munoz v. Guarino - Mr. Pitcoff successfully defended his client in a wrongful death action in
which his client's personal assets were at risk. At trial, Mr. Pitcoff obtained a verdict far below
a previous settlement offer that had been extended to plaintiff's estate. - Herman v. Moore - Mr. Pitcoff obtained a defendant's verdict in a damages only case on the
grounds that plaintiff, despite receiving years of physical therapy, did not sustain a "serious
injury" within the meaning of the New York State Insurance Law. - Casuso v. Demo Equipment Corp. - Mr. Pitcoff obtained a defendant's verdict in a matter in
which plaintiff alleged that he was forced to undergo three surgeries as a result of the
accident in question, including a lumbar fusion surgery, and was left with a permanent disability.
Mr. Pitcoff argued that the plaintiff’s surgeries were not related to the accident, but to
preexisting conditions. Defendants had insurance coverage of $10,000,000 and an offer of
$1,150,000 was extended to the plaintiff prior to trial, which was rejected. The jury dismissed plaintiff’s claim on the grounds that plaintiff's injuries did not breach the “serious injury”
threshold, as defined by the New York State Insurance Law.
IMPORTANT DECISIONS Mr. Pitcoff represented the Village of Mamaroneck in the landmark case of Groninger v. Village
of Mamaroneck, 17 N.Y.3d 125, 927 N.Y.S.2d 304 (2011), where the Court of Appeals held that
parking lots are the "functional equivalent" of roadways within the meaning of the New York State
prior written notice statutes. PUBLICATIONS Serious Injury Update
By Kenneth E. Pitcoff and Andrea M. Alonso
New York Law Journal- September 30, 2024 Governmental Liability for Maintenance of Parks
By Kenneth E. Pitcoff and Andrea M. Alonso
New York Law Journal-August 30, 2023 Collateral Estoppel and its Effect on Workers' Compensation Decisions
By Kenneth E. Pitcoff and Andrea M. Alonso
New York Law Journal-August 7, 2023 The Expansion of Prior Written Notice Protection
By Kenneth E. Pitcoff and Andrea M. Alonso
New York Law Journal-July 18, 2023 Maldovan: Court of Appeals Declines to Expand Government Liability
By Kenneth E. Pitcoff and Kevin G. Faley
New York Law Journal-March 31, 2023 Second Dept. Draws Line for Assumption of Risk in School Sports
By Kenneth E. Pitcoff and Andrea M. Alonso
New York Law Journal-March 10, 2023 Reckless Disregard' Under VTL 1103(B): Hazard Vehicles
By Kenneth E. Pitcoff and Andrea M. Alonso
New York Law Journal-November 2022 Qualified Immunity: Hazard Vehicles Working on A Highway
By Kenneth E. Pitcoff and Andrea M. Alonso
New York Law Journal-September 2022 "Emergency Operations" Under VTL 1104
By Kenneth E. Pitcoff and Andrea M. Alonso
New York Law Journal-September 2022 "Serious Injury" Update
By Kenneth E. Pitcoff and Andrea M. Alonso
New York Law Journal -August 30, 2021
Dram Shop Act: Boats, Motorcycles, ATVs, and Snowmobiles
By Kenneth E. Pitcoff and Andrea M. Alonso
New York Law Journal – February 3, 2021
A Closer Look at Qualified Immunity
By Kenneth E. Pitcoff and Andrea M. Alonso
New York Law Journal – July 23, 2020
Offer of Judgment: An Underutilized Tool in Federal Cases
By Kenneth E. Pitcoff and Andrea M. Alonso
New York Law Journal – December 23, 2019
“Rosa”: ‘Causally Related’ Is Insufficient To Establish Serious injury
By Kenneth E. Pitcoff and Andrea M. Alonso
New York Law Journal – October 24, 2019
NY Court of Appeals Continues to Expand Prior Written Notice Protections for Municipalities
By Kenneth E. Pitcoff and Kevin G. Faley
New York Law Journal – June 10, 2019
Is PTSD a 'Serious Injury' Under Insurance Law §5102(d)?
By Kenneth E. Pitcoff and Andrea M. Alonso
New York Law Journal – April 8, 2019
False Arrest/False Imprisonment and Late Notice of Claims
By Kenneth E. Pitcoff and Andrea M. Alonso
New York Law Journal – November 29, 2018
Crisis Handling in Municipal Cases
By Andrea Alonso and Kenneth Pitcoff
New York Law Journal – November 28, 2017
Update on ‘Serious Injury’
New York Law Journal – October 2, 2017 The ‘Creation Exception’ to the Pothole Law: Difficult to Prove
New York Law Journal – June 13, 2017
Hazard Vehicles: When Does Recklessness Disregard Standard Apply?
New York Law Journal – September 7, 2016
Liability and Emergency Responders: A U-Turn Around Kabir
New York Law Journal – July 15, 2016 When Same-Sex Harassment Creates a Hostile Work Environment
New York Law Journal – June 2, 2016 ‘Kabir’ Update: ‘Worst Fears’ Realized Prompts Proposed Amendments
New York Law Journal – September 4, 2013
‘Kabir’ and Its Progeny: A Reckless Disregard for Common Sense
New York Law Journal – August 1, 2012
Car vs. Bike: Rules of the Road
New York Law Journal – December 13, 2011
Court of Appeals Holds That Conditions Involving Snow or Ice Need Not Be Immediately Created
in Order to Hold a Municipality Liable Under the Affirmative Creation Exception to the Prior
Written Notice Rule
NYSBA Torts, Insurance & Compensation Law Section Journal – Winter 2011 – Vol. 40 – No.2 Groninger v. Village of Mamaroneck: Prior Written Notice Laws Are Applicable to Municipal Parking Lots
NYSBA Torts, Insurance & Compensation Law Section Journal – Winter 2011 – Vol. 40 – No.2
Failure to Provide Police Protection and Special Relationship Exception
New York Law Journal – April 8, 2011
Motorcycle Litigation: No Easy Ride
New York Law Journal – September 3, 2010
CPLR 1601: Limiting Liability Against Public Entities?
New York Law Journal - March 24, 2008
New Definition of "Creation Exception" to Pothole Law
New York Law Journal - March 6, 2007
Proposed Amendments to the Recreational Use Statute
New York Law Journal - September 25, 2006
Liability Exemptions for Emergency Vehicles
New York Law Journal - May 3, 2005
ORGANIZATIONS - American Bar Association
- Defense Research Institute
- Claims & Litigation Management Alliance.
|