Recent Verdicts

Facts: Plaintiff was a 51yr old woman operating her black Mercedes hatchback sedan on the Conduit expressway Southbound on 1/23/21, when she was struck on the left side rear of her vehicle by the Defendant’s box truck. Plaintiff claimed that she had changed from the middle lane to the left lane when Defendant was operating at an unsafe speed and rear-ended her vehicle. Defendant claimed that Plaintiff was attempting to cut across the left lane to enter an entrance ramp to the Belt parkway and caused the accident when cutting in front of Defendant’s box truck. Plaintiff claimed multiple injuries from the accident including a right knee meniscal tear requiring arthroscopic surgery.

At trial, Plaintiff and Defendant each testified. Plaintiff testified that Defendant caused the accident, and she suffered pain, impairment, and loss of work as a real estate agent due to her injuries from this accident. Defendant testified that he could not avoid the accident as Plaintiff pulled from his right directly in front of him. The Jury was provided Plaintiff’s full medical records including surgical and narrative reports from an orthopedic surgeon, who gave causation, significant limitation, and permanency. Defense provided an Orthopedic Examination that opined that Plaintiff had degenerative conditions in her knees and did not have any objective orthopedic injury from the accident. The jury was also provided with scene and damage photos showing damage to Plaintiff’s left side rear door and rear bumper, damage to Defendant’s right side front bumper and front wheel, and skid marks on the roadway from Defendant’s truck. In summation, Plaintiff’s attorney asked for $400,000 in past damages, $10,000 a year in future damages, and $50-70,000 in lost wages.

Verdict: DEFENSE VERDICT on liability (Michael Vicario, November 25, 2024)

Desire Guezo v. Calcano Domestic & Foreign Auto Repair. 
Supreme Court, Bronx County

Facts: Plaintiff, 44 years old at the time of the accident, claimed that he slipped and fell on snow/ice located at the defendant's gas station after he finished pumping gas. Photographs taken by the plaintiff after the accident showed snow on the ground in between the gas pumps and his vehicle. It last snowed the day before the accident. The plaintiff alleged to have sustained herniations to his cervical and lumbar spines in addition to a tear to his left wrist. After a course of conservative treatment and several epidural injections, he underwent an anterior cervical discectomy at two levels with placement of a plate and cage, a lumbar microdiscectomy and annuloplasty and arthroscopic surgery to the left wrist.

Mr. Kim questioned whether this accident occurred at the defendant's gas station based upon numerous inconsistencies with plaintiff's version of the accident and the failure to report this accident to the gas station attendant in addition to the police. Furthermore, the photographs allegedly taken by plaintiff immediately after the accident contained several inconsistencies raising an issue as to its validity. Finally, Mr. Kim argued that the injuries were not causally related to the slip and fall accident. Mr. Kim introduced evidence of a prior automobile accident that occurred 10 years prior with similar injuries as well as a subsequent automobile accident.

Amount asked from the jury. The plaintiff requested $1.7 million for past pain and suffering, $1 million for future pain and suffering, $130,000 for past medical expenses and $2.6 million for future medical expenses.

Verdict: DEFENSE VERDICT (Jeoungson Kim, Esq., November 22, 2024)

Cesar Balderas v. T. Moriarty & Son, Inc.

Supreme Court, Richmond County

Facts: Male 39 yr. old, plaintiff pedestrian allegedly fell on construction debris on July 13, 2019, at the Tottenville, Staten Island, substation being installed by our client, T. Moriarty & Son, Inc., the general contractor for the City of New York and associated agencies. Plaintiff alleged that he slipped and fell alongside the adjacent roadway on construction debris that a subcontractor had allowed to remain after repairing the roadway for utility attachment. At the emergency room on the date of loss, the triage nurse and attending physician verified h advised them that he injured his arm while arm wrestling, but he later alleged the fall caused his injury.

Through the course of discovery and at trial, the plaintiff fought the introduction of the ER record statements by him as hearsay and that the two medical providers misheard his statements. He then went on to have a fracture of his left humerus reduced via surgery leaving a lengthy scar on his left arm. His expert witness, Dr. Mark McMahon, testified that the injury could not have resulted in such a fracture. Dr. McMahon also testified that the hardware would most likely have to be removed in the future. Our expert, Dr. Jeff Richmond, testified that such a conclusion is beyond reason, and while the injury could have come from a direct blunt impact, to rule out a torsion fracture was outside of standards of orthopedic care. He also disagreed with Dr. McMahon on the plaintiff’s presentation as to range of motion of the affected areas.  On cross-examination, Dr. McMahon admitted he had not treated a fracture or other bone surgery in over 25 years. At trial, the client’s project manager testified clearly and without ambiguity that the client had performed no work in the area where the plaintiff alleged to have fallen on the debris. Plaintiff requested $450,000 or more from the jury.

Verdict: DEFENSE VERDICT (Richard E. Stiek, November 22, 2024)

Medical Malpractice Case

Facts:  Male 59 yr. old, patient presented to an internist on March 7, 2017, with history of chest pain.  An ECG did not reveal evidence of an acute cardiac event and the he did not have active complaints.  He was referred to the defendant, cardiologist the next day.  The cardiologist’s physical examination was negative and a cardiac work up including a cardiac stress test was ordered on an outpatient basis.  On March 15, 2017, before the cardiac work up was started, he presented to the emergency room with an acute myocardial infarction.  He was found to have 100% occlusion of the Right Coronary Artery (RCA) and significant blockages of the Left Anterior Descending Artery (LAD).  He later went on to have bypass surgery.

 It was alleged that plaintiff required immediate hospitalization to address complaints consistent with unstable angina and required evaluation/monitoring in a hospital. It was claimed that as a result of a failure to timely treat the plaintiff, he sustained a myocardial infarction which caused significant damage to his heart and decreased function of the patient’s heart for the rest of his life.

 We argued that the care was appropriate, the symptoms were nonspecific and did not indicate the need for referral to the emergency room.

Verdict: DEFENSE VERDICT on behalf of the only remaining defendant, the Cardiologist, our Client (James Pannone, August 30, 2024)

Verdict: Defense verdict. The jury returned a verdict in our client’s favor after only 25 minutes of deliberation. (Kevin Faley, August 2024) 

Dental Malpractice Case

Supreme Court Queens County

Facts / Claims: Plaintiff alleged that Defendant, during his course of treatment from December 2, 2019 to March 5, 2020 improperly placed an implant at the site of tooth #8 and that there was insufficient bone support at the implant site causing the implant to fail secondary to infection and necrosis. 

Plaintiff contended that Defendant placed an implant at improper angulation, depth and spacing; did not utilize proper surgical templates and surgical guides for placement of the implants; failed to refer the plaintiff to a specialist for placement and treatment of the implants; and that she was not given appropriate informed consent prior to treatment.  Lastly, it was further alleged that the defendant failed to act in a timely manner once there were signs of a post operative infection.

It was alleged as a result, the plaintiff required extensive oral surgeries and she remained with a defect that required further surgical intervention.

The plaintiff called the subsequent treating dentist/ periodontal surgeon as an expert.

We argued that all the care and treatment was within accepted standards of care and the unfortunate results were caused by an infection, which is always a risk of the procedure that cannot be avoided.

Verdict: Defense Verdict (James Pannone, January 31, 2024)

Dental Malpractice Case

Supreme Court Nassau County

Facts: Plaintiff alleged that there was a failure of all of the defendants to establish a proper prosthetic treatment plan, and implement an improper plan, leading to failure of the upper Hybrid Denture/ Bridge, and alleged failure of four implants. This required extensive restorative treatment including periodontal surgeries, bone grafts, placement of six dental implants and fabrication of temporary and final upper locator denture. 

In addition, plaintiff is alleging that all three defendants failed to advise the plaintiff of the risks, benefits, and alternatives of the proposed treatment plan.

The defense argues that there was a team approach and that all were in agreement with the proposed treatment plan and further that the Patients failure to comply with the advice of the doctors, contributed to the failure and much of the subsequent treatment rendered had   been recommended by the defendant.

The Plaintiff settled with two of the three defendants prior to trial for $110,000.  (It was argued prior to trial that plaintiff already received full value for the case)

Verdict:  The Jury found in favor of the Plaintiff, and awarded Dental Expenses of $22,000 and a pain and suffering award of $44,000, for a total of $66,000.  The jury also found that the Plaintiff was 30% at fault and that a settling Defendant was 35% at fault. Accordingly, the net award to the plaintiff was:  $23,100.  However, the award must be reduced by the prior settlement and the net award to the Plaintiff was $0.  (James Pannone, January 12, 2024)

Medical Malpractice Case
Pain Management Physician

Supreme Court Bronx County

Facts/ Claims: Plaintiff was a patient at a pain management facility undergoing a pain management procedure for the back, when it was alleged as a result of negligent administration of pain medication the Plaintiff was caused to suffer from Chronic Regional Pain Syndrome, leading to chronic pain and disability of the upper arm.

We represented the Pain management specialist who was performing the procedure. It was further alleged that our client was responsible as the supervising physician.

Verdict: Directed Defense Verdict (Attorney James Pannone, November 27, 2023)   

Luongo v. Doherty Enterprises

Supreme Court Queens County

Facts: Plaintiff claimed that a chair was caused to close upon her left hand by an employee of the defendant restaurant.  It was alleged that as a result, she sustained a “crush” injury with a tear to her left wrist and complex regional pain syndrome (hereinafter “CRPS”), leading to complete disability. The incident and injury were reported at the time of the accident.

After a liability verdict, which found the plaintiff 45% at fault for the accident, a damages trial was conducted.  Plaintiff called as witnesses a treating neurologist, a pain management/physiatry doctor, an orthopedist, a psychiatrist, and an economist.  The experts contended the Plaintiff suffered from Chronic CRPS and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, causing her to be completely disabled. 

At trial we conceded an injury with an initial tear in the wrist requiring treatment and therapy, and suggested fair compensation should be awarded. However, we denied any permanent injury or Chronic CRPS. Counsel asked for several million dollars in damages.

Last Demand was $1.5 million.

VERDICT: $150,000, discounted by plaintiff’s comparative fault to $82,500  (Attorney- James Pannone, August 4, 2023)

D. Williams v. Divine Investors, LLC, Tira Holding Corp., et al.

Supreme Court, Long Island City, Queens County

PARKING LOT TRIP & FALL

FACTS: The firm defended the landlord and commercial tenant in this matter. Plaintiff and her friend were used car shopping on Jamaica Avenue. They stopped into a Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurant to use the restroom. When they exited, they decided to cut across the corner property and walked through the drive-thru and parking lot. Both women admitted on cross-examination that they “were running their mouths and not paying attention”, when Ms. Williams stepped into a one-foot-wide, pothole that had been recently repaired by the codefendant, Bucket Truck Services, who defaulted and failed to appear for trial. The landlord was dismissed from the case on a motion for a directed verdict, over the objection of plaintiff’s counsel who claimed that defense counsel was engaged in an impermissible conflict of interest, by representing both the landlord and tenant in this matter. Plaintiff claimed a right shoulder tear that required surgery, in addition to alleged lumbar spinal injuries, which resulted in a three (3) level lumbar fusion, only after she secured a litigation funding loan. Prior to trial, plaintiff’s counsel demand was $5,000,000.00.

VERDICT: After five (5) days of trial, the jury returned a liability verdict against the KFC franchise/tenant and made a liability assessment of 75% vs. KFC and 25% vs. the plaintiff. The parties settled this matter after the liability verdict and before the damages trial started in the amount of $1,400,000.00. (Lawton W. Squires, April 28, 2023)

Mercado v. Alpine Ready Mix
Supreme Court, Kings County
MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT
Facts: Plaintiff claimed to have been struck on the rear corner panel of his vehicle after being stopped for between 2 to 4 minutes.  Defendant conversely claimed that Plaintiff’s vehicle had actually struck his cement truck while it was stopped.  Prior to trial, we successfully precluded Plaintiff from calling an alleged eye witness at trial, due to Plaintiff having disclosed the witness only 23 days prior to trial without a reasonable excuse.  The 30-year old Plaintiff claimed to have suffered serious spinal injuries requiring a cervical fusion surgery, and sought at or near one million dollars in compensation. 
VERDICT: DEFENSE VERDICT in favor of our client.  The jury returned its verdict after only ten minutes of deliberation, finding no liability against our client (Kenneth Pitcoff, March 21, 2022)

DiLorenzo v. Ham, et al.
Supreme Court, Kings County
MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT
Facts: Plaintiff was a passenger in the middle vehicle of a three-vehicle rear end collision.  Co-Defendants and drivers of the middle and rear vehicle both claimed that our client, Defendant driver of the front vehicle, changed lanes without signaling and came to an abrupt stop.  The driver of the front vehicle denied this, maintaining that he had been in the right lane the entire time and came to a stop due to traffic.  Plaintiff claimed to have sustain numerous serious personal injuries requiring surgeries, including a cervical fusion and arthroscopic shoulder surgery. 
VERDICT: DEFENSE VERDICT in favor of our client,  and a 100 percent liability verdict on the rear vehicle in the three-vehicle chain (Jeoungson Kim, February 7, 2022).

CAVER V. ABCNY, Inc., et al.
Supreme Court, Kings County
PREMISES LIABILITY
Facts: Plaintiff slipped on snow and ice that had accumulated on the sidewalk abutting a property owned by Co-Defendant where the commercial tenant Defendant operated a dance studio.  Plaintiff was exiting the residential entrance of the building at the time and claimed that there was no safe path to and from the doorway due to residual snow and ice from a snowstorm from two days prior to the accident.  Plaintiff claimed complex regional pain syndrome, a deltoid ligament tear, a peroneal tear, reflex sympathetic dystrophy, and a talofibular ligament tear.  Despite Plaintiff's testimony that she fell near the residential entrance, Co-Defendant claimed at trial that the Defendant dance studio had been responsible for removal of snow and ice.  Defendant dance studio claimed a lack of control or responsibility for that area of the sidewalk.   

VERDICT: DEFENSE VERDICT in favor of our client, Defendant dance studio, and a 100 percent liability verdict against Co-Defendant in the amount of $8,000,000. (Kevin Faley, December 20, 2021)

RIZKALLA v. SADA
Supreme Court, Richmond County
MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT
Facts: Defendant rear ended the plaintiff’s vehicle. Plaintiff allegedly sustained meniscus tears to both knees and 8 herniations/bulges to her neck and back. Plaintiff claimed she would require total knee replacement to either or both knees. Defense claimed that the injuries alleged were not caused by the minor impact. Photographs of the minimal rear end damage to plaintiff’s vehicle and scratches to the front of defendant’s vehicle were introduced into evidence. Defense also claimed that all of plaintiff’s injuries were pre-existing based upon the findings contained in the MRI reports.
VERDICT: DEFENSE VERDICT (Jeoungson Kim, May 12, 2021)

FRANZOSO v. VILLAGE OF CROTON-ON-HUDSON
Supreme Court, Westchester County
NEGLIENCE / PROPERTY DAMAGE
Facts: Plaintiff claimed the Village negligently constructed a 100‘concrete retaining wall on the Plaintiff’s property that was required when the Village raised the adjacent street level approximately 15 years earlier. It was further alleged that the Village negligently planted a tree too close to this wall and failed to properly maintain this tree. It was alleged that as result of same the Wall had failed and required replacement at a cost of $120,000. Defense argued the wall was structurally sound and that the tree was properly planted, maintained, and had no impact on the wall. Plaintiff called an Expert Engineer, Surveyor, and Construction Specialist to prove his case. Defense called an Engineer.
VERDICT: DEFENSE VERDICT (James Pannone, March 4, 2020)

SIGCHA v. TSALAPATANIS
Supreme Court, Queens County
MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT
Facts: Plaintiff, a pedestrian within the crosswalk, was struck by defendant’s vehicle. As a result, plaintiff sustained a skull fracture, traumatic brain injury and a herniated disc at C5-6 which required cervical fusion and discectomy after years of conservative treatment and epidural injections. Plaintiff’s neurologist testified that plaintiff suffers from severe and permanent cognitive problems. Plaintiff’s orthopedic surgeon and physiatrist both testified concerning her cervical fusion and the need for additional fusion surgery to the lumbar spine. Defendant's experts testified that plaintiff did not experience any lasting cognitive deficits and her ability to testify as to the accident and course of treatment contradicts her claims of retrograde and anterograde amnesia. It was also argued that the plaintiff had disc dessication at every level of her cervical and lumbar spines and the herniation at C5-6 did not compress or impinge on any nerve root and as such, a cervical fusion should not have been performed. Plaintiff sought $3.1 million from the jury for past and future medical expenses and past and future pain and suffering.
VERDICT: $50,000 past pain and suffering and $60,000 for future pain and suffering. No award was made for past and future medical expenses. (Jeoungson Kim, January 15, 2020)

LI v. KONO 
Supreme Court, Queens County
MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT
Facts: Plaintiff claimed to have sustained injuries while riding his bicycle as a result of being hit by defendant vehicle. The accident occurred in the intersection. Both the plaintiff and the defendant each claimed that they had a green light in their direction of travel. The jury found that defendant was not negligent.
VERDICT: DEFENSE VERDICT (Cristina Knorr, December 12, 2019)

JAMAICA EAST CONDO. ASSOC. v. ALL AREA REALTY SERVICES, INC.
Supreme Court, Queens County
BREACH OF CONTRACT
Facts: Condominium sued former property management company for breach of contract for allegedly maintaining building accounting records negligently. At trial, defendants proved that the alleged discrepancy in funds was due to the building’s unit owners' failing to pay their monthly maintenance fees, not due to any negligence on behalf of the management company.
VERDICT: DEFENSE VERDICT (George Aprilakis, October 30, 2019)

BAUER v. VILLAGE OF CROTON ON HUDSON
Supreme Court, Westchester County
PREMISES LIABILITY
Facts: The Village of Croton on Hudson’s Department of Water had performed work on a sidewalk after receiving complaints that a valve had been shut off. Village employees subsequently cut a four-foot hole in the sidewalk, repaired the valve, and backfilled the hole. The employees planned to return to the scene at a later date to install a new section of sidewalk. In the meantime, there was still a portion of sidewalk next to the hole that was accessible to pedestrians. While walking on that portion of the sidewalk, plaintiff slipped and fell, claiming injuries to both knees. At trial, plaintiff argued that the Village created and failed to clean up lingering debris after performing work on the sidewalk.
VERDICT: DEFENSE VERDICT (Kevin Faley, July 16, 2018)

HINDS, et. al. v. TOWN OF MOUNT PLEASANT, et. al.
United States District Court, Southern District of New York
CIVIL RIGHTS
Facts: Seven plaintiffs brought lawsuits stemming from an October 2010 incident involving the shooting death of D.J. Henry. Specifically, following a bar fight, all patrons were instructed to leave the bar and the police were called. Mr. Henry was parked in the fire lane adjacent to the bar with a front seat passenger and one backseat passenger. After sounding his horn instructing Mr. Henry to exit the fire lane, a Town of Mount Pleasant police officer approached the vehicle. At that point, Mr. Henry proceeded forward. The officer and a Village of Pleasantville police officer “stop,” which was ignored. The Village of Pleasantville police officer ended up on the hood of the vehicle and fired four shots into the vehicle, killing D.J. Henry, grazing the front seat passenger and narrowly missing the rear seat passenger. Town of Mount Pleasant police officers, not knowing where the shots were coming from, subsequently handcuffed all three passengers. At this time, a large crowd of people rushed forward to aid their friends. It was alleged by all plaintiffs that five officers used excessive force, and it was further alleged by four plaintiffs that they were falsely arrested and maliciously prosecuted. The combined settlement demand for all plaintiffs never came below $9,700,000.
VERDICT: DEFENSE VERDICT (for six plaintiffs) and $50,000 verdict for one plaintiff (Kenneth Pitcoff on behalf of three County of Westchester police officers and two Town of Mount Pleasant police officers, June 14, 2018)

ABDELHAKIM v. McQUIRE
Supreme Court, Kings County
MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT
Facts: This case involved a sideswipe accident where each driver claimed the other navigated around a double parked car and crossed a double yellow line causing the accident. The police accident report supported plaintiff’s version of events and the jury found in favor of the plaintiff on liability. In regard to damages, the plaintiff alleged tears to his left knee and left shoulder with arthroscopic surgery. Defense counsel argued that the impact was minimal and that the plaintiff’s injuries were pre-existing and not caused by this accident.
VERDICT: DEFENSE VERDICT (Edward Harrington, November 9, 2017)

MONROE v. POLICE OFFICER VIOHL
United States District Court, Southern District of New York
CIVIL RIGHTS
Facts: 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. Defense counsel argued that the use of the Taser was necessary due to plaintiff’s failure to comply with the officer's commands and that the officer had properly followed the Department’s use of force continuum. Defense counsel also argued that plaintiff’s claim of being thrown against the hood of the police vehicle was a fabrication.
VERDICT: DEFENSE VERDICT (Kenneth Pitcoff, February 8, 2017)

THOMAS v. BUCKNER
Supreme Court, Kings County
MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT
Facts: Plaintiff was a pedestrian struck by Defendant’s vehicle. Plaintiff contended she was in the cross walk. Defendant contended the plaintiff was crossing in the middle of the street without warning. Trial testimony was consistent that after the first impact the defendant panicked and stepped off the break causing a second impact. The defense argued that the negligence of the defendant was not a substantial factor in causing the accident or the injuries to the plaintiff.
VERDICT: DEFENSE VERDICT (James Pannone, February 1, 2017)

SAMUELS-ROCHESTER v. METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
Supreme Court, New York County
MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT
Facts: Plaintiff, a bus passenger, alleged that she was thrown from her seat and across the bus when the driver made a sudden right turn at approximately 40-45 mph. Plaintiff alleged that she suffered injury to the neck, back, shoulder and knee from the accident, underwent several years of therapy, injections and was recommended for potential knee and shoulder surgery, which she did not undergo. Defense counsel contended that the facts as alleged by plaintiff are unrealistic and uncorroborated by any other witnesses. Defense counsel introduced testimony from an orthopedist and a radiologist that plaintiff's diagnostic and clinical findings were consistent with pre-existing arthritis and that there were no objective signs of any trauma from the accident.
VERDICT: DEFENSE VERDICT (Jenna Mastroddi, November 4, 2016)

NOEL v. INCORPORATED VILLAGE OF LAKE SUCCESS, et. al.
United States District Court, Eastern District of New York
Municipal Liability
Facts: 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.
Verdict: DEFENSE VERDICT (Attorney - Kenneth Pitcoff on behalf of the Incorporated Village of Lake Success, as well as the Superintendent and Assistant Superintendent of the Village of Lake Success Golf Course, March 9, 2016)

SHEN & FAN v. MARCUS MARINO ARCHITECTS
Supreme Court, Richmond County
Breach of Contract
Facts: Plaintiffs, a married couple, had retained the architect defendant to design and obtain approval for two homes to be built on two properties located in the Special Hillside Preservation Zoning District in Staten Island. Due to the locations of the properties, approval had to be first obtained from the New York City Department of City Planning ("DCP"). Plaintiffs alleged that defendant had breached the contracts for both properties by taking an unreasonable amount of time to obtain DCP approval, failing to deliver preliminary designs, failing to respond to issues raised by the Staten Island DCP promptly, and by overcharging for services performed.  As a result, plaintiffs sought the return of professional fees paid, as well as other expenses directly related to the alleged breach, as damages.  At trial, testimony was offered by expert architects on behalf of both parties, as well as by employees of the DCP.
Verdict: DEFENSE VERDICT (Attorney - Leigh H. Sutton, October 30, 2015)

CASUSO v. DEMO EQUIPMENT CORP. and ANDREJ BRONISLAW
Supreme Court, Kings County
Motor Vehicle Accident
Facts: Plaintiff was stopped at a red traffic light when he was rear-ended by a vehicle driven by defendant. Summary judgment on liability in favor of the plaintiff was granted against both the defendant driver and the owner of the vehicle based on vicarious liability. Trial was as to damages only. Plaintiff underwent a percutaneous discectomy of the lumbar spine at L5-S1, and a subsequent fusion at L5-S1. He also underwent arthroscopic surgery to repair a torn ligament in his left ankle. The 29-year-old plaintiff alleged that he could no longer work as a truck driver. Plaintiff sought $5 million in damages, including $1.25 million for future medical expenses, $250,000 for past medical expenses, $1.5 million for past pain and suffering, and $2 million for future pain and suffering. Defense expert opined that plaintiff’s injuries were not related to the accident, and were the result of a previous accident.
Demand: $5,000,000
Verdict: DEFENSE VERDICT (Attorney - Kenneth E. Pitcoff, October 20, 2015)

FRIEDLAND v. MULLAJ
Supreme Court, New York County
Motor Vehicle Accident
Facts: Plaintiff was a pedestrian in a cross walk when the defendant’s vehicle, while making a left turn, struck her on the right side throwing her to the floor. Prior to jury selection, defendant stipulated to liability and conceded that the plaintiff sustained a compression fracture of the L2 vertebrae as a result of the accident. Plaintiff argued that the underlying medical conditions were exacerbated severely as a result of the trauma and the fractured vertebrae worsened, prolonged and complicated the recovery from the spinal fusion surgery performed only 10 months earlier. Additionally, plaintiff contended that the accident caused an exacerbation of a pre-existing hip condition. It was alleged that the accident caused a significant worsening of labral and tendon tears which led to the need for surgery and extensive treatment. It was alleged that plaintiff was now caused to suffer from debilitating and continuous pain for the rest of her life and would require continued medical treatment including but not limited to hip replacement. The defense argued that all of the claims, apart from the compression fracture, were pre-existing injuries and not exacerbated by the accident. Prior to trial the last demand was $1.25 million and at trial plaintiff’s counsel requested $5,000,000 in damages. The defense asked the jury to award plaintiff fair compensation for her injuries and suggested between $10,000 and $100,000.
Verdict: Plaintiff was awarded $50,000 in past pain and suffering and $13,850 for past medical expenses, only. (Attorney - James Pannone, October 14, 2015).

ENGEL v. METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY BUS CO. and NYCTA
Supreme Court, New York County
Motor Vehicle Accident
Facts: Plaintiff was riding his bicycle on 6th Avenue in Manhattan. As plaintiff passed a TA bus stopped in a bus stop to his left, an MTA bus was passing the TA bus. Plaintiff came into contact with the rear right wheel of the MTA bus. Plaintiff claimed that the MTA bus operator violated VTL § 1122-A and should have seen plaintiff. The MTA bus operator testified that he was traveling straight in the second lane and never saw plaintiff prior to the accident. Plaintiff suffered a serious de-gloving injury of his left leg from below the knee to the ankle. Plaintiff was hospitalized for one month and underwent various debridements and a split thickness skin graft. Plaintiff also developed acute kidney injury due to rhabdomyolysis resulting in urinary impairment and requiring dialysis. Plaintiff also developed a pulmonary embolism which required the placement of a vena cava filter. During trial, a settlement offer of $2,500,000 was extended to plaintiff, which was declined.
Verdict: 25% liability as against MTA, 75% liability as against plaintiff. Verdict of $3,500,000, reduced by plaintiff's comparative negligence to $875,000. (Attorney - Kevin Faley on behalf of MTA, March 3, 2015)

SEGAL v. STEPHEN P. BOWNE, DMD, JOSEPH MANISCALCO, DMD, ANDREW KOENIGSBERG, DDS AND GALLERY 57 DENTAL
Supreme Court, New York County
Medical Malpractice
Facts: Plaintiff underwent extraction of a molar that was located on the left side of her upper jaw that was performed by Dr. Koenigsberg. Plaintiff subsequently developed infections of her sinuses and her maxillary bone. Plaintiff sought recovery of damages for past and future pain and suffering. She also claimed that membrane damage was caused by Dr. Koenigsberg. Plaintiff sued Dr. Koenigsberg and his practice, Gallery 57 Dental. Plaintiff alleged that Dr. Koenigsberg failed to detect an injury that occurred during the extraction of tooth and that Gallery 57 Dental was vicariously liable for Dr. Koenigsberg's actions. The defense's expert otolaryngologist contended that plaintiff suffered a chronic disease of her sinuses, the condition predated the surgeries the defendant performed, and that the condition was the cause of her injuries.
Verdict: DEFENSE VERDICT (Attorney - Phil Smith, November 13, 2014)

FIGUEROA v. MANDEL
Supreme Court, New York County
Motor Vehicle Accident
Facts: Plaintiff was driving on Weeks Avenue near the Cross Bronx Expressway. While proceeding through an intersection, plaintiff’s minivan was struck by a car driven by the defendant. Plaintiff claimed that he sustained injuries including traumatic brain injury confirmed by brain MRI, diffuse tensor imaging and QEEG tests, 18 percent atrophy of the brain, cognitive and psychological impairment, post traumatic stress, fracture big toe, lumbar sprain/strain and cervical sprain/strain.  Plaintiff claimed that defendant was negligent in the operation of his vehicle. Each driver claimed that the other ignored a stop sign before entering the intersection. Plaintiff sought recovery of $832,491 for future medical expenses, $1,832,428 for past and future lost earnings, $413,648 for lost pension benefits, and unspecified damages for past and future pain and suffering. Defense experts opined that plaintiff’s injuries were not related to the accident.
Verdict: DEFENSE VERDICT (Attorney – Jeoungson Kim, April 21, 2014)

MANGIONE v. METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY BUS CO. and CAESAR RUSSO
Supreme Court, Queens County
Motor Vehicle Accident 
Facts: Plaintiff, a passenger of a transit bus, alleged that she fell to the bus’s floor when bus driver abruptly stopped. She claimed injuries of her back, knee, neck, a shoulder and a thumb. Plaintiff sued the bus driver and the MTA Bus Co. alleging driver negligence and the MTA’s vicarious liability. She sought recovery of approximately $5 million for future medical expenses, pain and suffering, and future pain and suffering. Defense counsel contended that plaintiff’s spinal injuries were caused by a motor vehicle accident that occurred in 2005.
Verdict: DEFENSE VERDICT (Attorney – Manuel Reynoso, February 10, 2014)

MCDANIEL v. NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY
Supreme Court, Richmond County
Motor Vehicle Accident 
Facts: Plaintiff, a passenger of a public bus, alleged that when the bus stopped she attempted to exit but fell while stepping out of the bus. She claimed that she sustained injuries of her back, a knee, a leg, and her neck. Plaintiff sued the New York City Transit Authority, alleging that the bus driver was negligent in his operation of the bus, and that the NYCTA was vicariously liable for her injuries. She claimed that the driver negligently stopped in an area which was a grass-covered hole. Defense counsel contended that the bus stop was a city-owned area and that, as such, the NYCTA was not liable for its condition, and used photographic evidence to show that the hole would not have been readily apparent to the driver.
Verdict: DEFENSE VERDICT (Attorney – Jenna L. Mastroddi, December 16, 2013)

FERNANDEZ AND JIMENEZ v. MELENDEZ, MELENDEZ, AND RUIZ
Supreme Court, Bronx County
Motor Vehicle Accident
Facts: Plaintiffs were rear-seat passengers of a car that was being driven by co-defendant. Co-defendant's car was involved in a sideswipe collision with defendant. Plaintiff Fernandez claimed that she sustained injuries to her back and a knee. Plaintiff Jimenez claimed that she sustained injuries of her back and neck. Plaintiffs sued the drivers and owners of the vehicles, alleging that they were negligent in the operation of their respective vehicles. Plaintiff Fernandez sought recovery of a total of $556,000 for past and future medical expenses and past and future pain and suffering. The defense's expert orthopedist opined that Plaintiff Fernandez's left knee's condition predates the accident and is not permanent.
Verdict: DEFENSE VERDICT (Attorney - Diane L. Devita, October 3, 2013)

VILLAGE JOINT INC. and STEPHEN CHOI v. BERZAK ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS, P.C. and MICHAEL DAVID BERZAK
Supreme Court, New York County
Architect Malpractice/Breach of Contract
Facts: Plaintiff hired defendant firm to design a renovation of a commercial building that he intended to convert to an eating and drinking establishment. The NYC DOB issued several rounds of objections to defendant’s architectural plan submissions and various stop-work orders were issued during construction. Plaintiff claimed that defendant’s architectural plans did not satisfy his business plan and that he secured a lease, formed a corporation and commenced renovations in reliance of defendants’ assurances that their plans would be approved. Plaintiffs sought recovery of $2,977,390 comprising of lost profits and renovation costs.
Verdict: DEFENSE VERDICT (Attorneys – Kevin G. Faley and Leigh H. Sutton, September 9, 2013)

RHODES v. NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY and METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY
Supreme Court, Richmond County
Motor Vehicle Accident
Facts: Plaintiff, Rhodes, was a passenger of a public bus. The bus’s driver suddenly stopped while pedestrians were throwing snowballs at the vehicle. Plaintiff was tossed to the bus’s floor, and another passenger fell onto him. Plaintiff claimed he sustained injuries of a knee. Plaintiff sued the bus’s operator, the New York City Transit Authority, and that agency’s parent, the Metropolitan Transit Authority. He alleged that the driver was negligent in the operation of the bus and that other defendants were vicariously liable. Defense counsel contended that the bus’s driver reasonably and prudently reacted to a sudden emergency that was created by pedestrian’s actions.
Verdict: DEFENSE VERDICT (Attorney – Michael V. Campanile, July 29, 2013)

LENNON v. DR. M.
Supreme Court, Suffolk County
Medical Malpractice
Facts: Plaintiff was 22 weeks pregnant with triplets when she presented to the hospital with consistent contractions and was placed on tocolytic medications by a non-party physician. Defendant took over care four days after plaintiff’s admission. Plaintiff continued to have contractions and her water broke two days after the defendant took over care. The first infant was born the next day and died the following day due to complications of prematurity. The remaining infants were born several days later. One died within moments of birth and the other was stillborn. The plaintiff contended that the defendant should have monitored the patient with transvaginal ultrasounds and should have maintained the patient on tocolytic medications. The defendant maintained that the medications were not appropriate and would not have changed the outcome. Plaintiff sued for the emotional distress and post-traumatic stress disorder associated with loss of triplets. She also made a claim for wrongful death and pain and suffering of the infants.
Verdict: DEFENSE VERDICT (Attorney – James A. Pannone, June 3, 2013)

GUCCIARDI v. HUGUENOT PROPERTIES INC. and NEW CHOPSTICKS HOUSE INC.
Supreme Court, Richmond County
Premises Liability
Facts: Plaintiff fell in the parking lot of a strip mall in Richmond County. She sustained injuries of a knee. Plaintiff sued the mall’s owner and one of the mall’s tenants alleging that they were negligent and created a dangerous condition that caused her fall. The mall’s owner was dismissed from the matter. Plaintiff claimed that the ice that caused her fall was a result of tenant defendant’s employees emptying a mop bucket in the parking lot during freezing conditions. Defense counsel contended that the accident was not a result of a condition created by an employee of the defendant.
Verdict: DEFENSE VERDICT (Attorney – Kevin F. Mahon, May 28, 2013)

KEIL v. LEFKOVITS, et. al.
Supreme Court, New York County
Medical Malpractice
Facts: Plaintiff decedent was examined by defendant dermatologist. The doctor biopsied a mole on plaintiff’s back. And pathology revealed a malignant melanoma. Plaintiff was referred to an oncologist. Over the next month, the oncologist performed three examinations of the mole and the surrounding area. Results were provided to defendant dermatologist in a letter. The letter indicated that a nodule occupied plaintiffs left subpleural region, but that the oncologist was not concerned and it would be evaluated with a CT scan. The CT scan was not performed. Over the next 11 months, defendant dermatologist performed 12 examination, including removal and biopsies of the mole, but cancer was not detected. After about 1 year of treatment with defendant doctor, another doctor determined that plaintiff was suffering stage-IV metastatic cancer of his brain, liver, lungs, several bones and spine. Plaintiff shortly died thereafter. Plaintiff’s estate sought recovery of wrongful-death damages, $1.2 million for past and future lost earnings, pain and suffering, and children’s damages for loss of parental guidance, along with plaintiff’s widow’s claim for loss of consortium. The defense’s expert dermatologist opined that defendant properly managed plaintiff’s condition.
Verdict: DEFENSE VERDICT (Attorney – Barry M. Viuker, May 17, 2013)

JONES v. NYC TRANSIT AUTHORITY
Supreme Court, New York County
Municipal Liability
Facts: Plaintiff fell while she was descending a stairway of Manhattan’s Grand Central Terminal. She sustained injuries of a knee. Plaintiff sued the premises’ operator, the New York City Transit Authority, alleging that it was negligent in its maintenance of the premises. She further alleged that the agency’s negligence created a dangerous condition and caused her accident. Plaintiff claimed that a crack caused her fall, and although she did not see the crack beforehand, she felt it through the sole of her shoe. Defense counsel challenged the validity of photos provided by plaintiff’s counsel. Defense counsel’s masonry expert also found that the crack was repaired appropriately. Defense counsel also contended that Jones could not prove that a crack or dangerous condition existed on the date of the accident. He further contended that Jones could not prove that the New York City Transit Authority had notice of any defect that may have caused her fall.
Verdict: DEFENSE VERDICT (Attorney – Kevin F. Mahon, April 26, 2013)

MUNOZ v. NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY, MABSTOA, “JOHN DOE”
Supreme Court, New York County
Municipal Liability
Facts: Plaintiff approached a public bus stop in Manhattan. She claimed that she was struck and dragged by the bus and sustained injuries of a shoulder as a result. She alleged that the bus’s driver was negligent in his operation of the bus and that the New York City Transit Authority and MABSTOA were vicariously liable. Defense counsel contended that plaintiff could not establish defendant’s negligence in operation of the bus. Defense counsel also claimed that plaintiff’s testimony was marred by inconsistencies and witnesses could not provide a complete account of the accident. Finally, defense counsel contended that plaintiff’s injuries dated back to a previous accident from 2004.
Verdict: DEFENSE VERDICT (Attorney – Jenna L. Mastroddi, March 27, 2013)

LOZANO v. PROGRESSIVE INSURANCE CO.
Supreme Court, New York County
Motor Vehicle Accident
Facts: Plaintiff was in a car accident while traveling through an intersection in Queens. The other driver’s insurer, Government Employees Insurance Co., tendered its policy, which provided $25,000 of coverage. Plaintiff sought further recovery via a supplementary underinsured-motorist provision, which was administered by Progressive Casualty Insurance Co. The claim was denied. Plaintiff sued Progressive Casualty Insurance alleging the other driver’s negligence in the operation of his vehicle. The defense counsel noted that the other’s driver’s course was not governed by a traffic-control device, but that a stop sign restricted plaintiff’s entrance into the intersection.
Verdict: DEFENSE VERDICT (Attorney – Edward J. Harrington, February 14, 2013)

WILLIAMS v. RIGGIO, PUBLIC ADMINISTRATOR OF KINGS COUNTY AS ADMIN. OR THE ESTATE OF JOSEPH WALKER, MOHAMMED
Supreme Court, Kings County
Motor Vehicle Accident
Facts: Plaintiff was a passenger of an SUV which struck the right side of another vehicle, which had completed, or was executing, a left turn. Plaintiff claimed he sustained injuries of his back, a knee, a hand, and a thumb. Two months later, plaintiff was again a passenger of an SUV driven by the same individual. While making a left turn, the SUV collided with a car that was being driven by another individual. Plaintiff again claimed injuries of his neck. He sued the driver of the SUV in which he was a passenger, the owner of that SUV, and the two drivers of the other vehicles. Defense counsel contended that neither accident caused serious injury as defined by the no-fault law, and that the spinal injuries claimed by plaintiff were preexisting. The jury found that neither of the two accidents caused serious injury.
Verdict: DEFENSE VERDICT – (Attorney – Edward J. Harrington, February 4, 2013)

BANNER v. MANHATTAND AND BRONX SURFACE TRANSIT OPERATING AUTHORITY, NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY
Supreme Court, Bronx County
Motor Vehicle Accident
Facts: Plaintiff was a passenger on a bus. She claimed that she fell when the bus resumed travel following a stop at an intersection. She claimed that she sustained injuries to her knee. Plaintiff sued the bus's operator, the Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority, and that agency's parent, the New York City Transit Authority. Defense counsel contended that plaintiff exaggerated her description of the bus’s movement. Defense counsel also contended that plaintiff should have utilized one of the bus’s safety railings.
Verdict: DEFENSE VERDICT (Attorney – Kevin F. Mahon, December 7, 2012)

ARMSTRONG v. CARBONARA and LOCUS
Supreme Court, Kings County
Motor Vehicle Accident
Facts: Plaintiff’s vehicle collided with another vehicle and became airborne. Plaintiff sustained injuries of his diaphragm, a leg, a lung and his spleen. Plaintiff sued the drivers of the two other vehicles alleged to have been involved in the accident. Defendant Locus’ insurer tendered its policy for $100,000. The matter proceeded against Carbonara. Plaintiff claimed that defendant’s vehicle struck his vehicle while trying to enter his lane causing him to lose control. Defendant contended that his SUV was struck by another vehicle and that he saw plaintiff’s vehicle cross the road and strike the middle barrier. Defendants claimed that plaintiff was driving recklessly, speeding and weaving through traffic.
Jury found that plaintiff was entirely liable for the accident.
Verdict: DEFENSE VERDICT (Attorney – Kenneth E. Pitcoff, December 7, 2012)

YOUNGMAN v. MARTINEZ
U.S. District Court, Southern District New York
Motor Vehicle Accident
Facts: Plaintiff was riding on his motorcycle when he was struck by defendant while proceeding through an intersection. Plaintiff claimed that defendant was negligent in the operation of his vehicle. Defense counsel contended that defendant was properly positioned in the travel lane and that plaintiff occupied the turning lane and was struck while trying to pass the defendant’s vehicle. Plaintiff sought recovery of $288,400 for past and future medical expenses, past lost earning and past and future pain and suffering.
Verdict: DEFENSE VERDICT (Attorney – Jeoungson Kim, October 23, 2012)

BARNEA v. NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY
Supreme Court, New York County
Municipal Liability
Facts: Plaintiff slipped while stepping onto an upward-moving escalator in a subway station. He fell on to the escalator, and he sustained injuries of his face and head. Plaintiff alleged that the New York City Transit Authority was negligent in the maintenance of the premises and that it created a dangerous condition. Plaintiff claimed that the lower landing of the escalator was missing a plate which resulted in a gap that caused the fall. Defense counsel contended that the missing plate created a gap of minimal size.
Verdict: DEFENSE VERDICT (Attorney – Jeoungson Kim, July 5, 2012)

SHIM v. MASPETH SUPPLY CO., LLC MARK JIHONG KIM
Supreme Court, Queens County
Motor Vehicle Accident
Facts: Plaintiff was involved in a sideswipe collision with a vehicle operate by defendant. She claimed that she sustained injuries of her back. Plaintiff sued defendant Kim; Northern Boulevard's owner, the city of New York; and a contractor that had been hired to excavate a nearby portion of Northern Boulevard, Maspeth Supply Co. LLC. She alleged that Kim was negligent in the operation of his vehicle. Shim further alleged that the city and Maspeth Supply negligently created a dangerous condition that contributed to the accident.
Verdict: DEFENSE VERDICT (Attorney – Kenneth E. Pitcoff, June 22, 2012)

AHMED v. MTA, ET AL.
Supreme Court, Queens County
Motor Vehicle Accident
Facts: Plaintiff was a bus passenger. She contended that the bus came to an abrupt and violent stop, resulting in her fall. The bus driver died prior to trial. In his EBT, he denied that any untoward events had occurred. The defendant further contended that the jury should consider that the plaintiff's testimony that she slid a very significant portion along the floor after falling was inherently unbelievable and that her position should be rejected.
Verdict: DEFENSE VERDICT (Attorney – Manuel R. Reynoso, June 7, 2012)

LISI v. S.B.C.L., INC.
Supreme Court, Nassau County
General Liability
Facts: An altercation took place while plaintiff was dancing in a nightclub. One person was punched and fell onto plaintiff. She claimed that she sustained injuries of a hip, a knee, and a rib. Plaintiff alleged that the club’s staff negligently failed to provide adequate security. Defense counsel contended that five security guards were working during the night of the accident. Defense counsel also contended that the fight was an unpreventable incident that happened spontaneously. Plaintiff sought $30,000 for past medical expenses, $18,000 for lost earnings and unspecified damages for future pain and suffering.
Verdict: DEFENSE VERDICT (Attorney – Kevin G. Faley, March 30, 2012)

QUINTERO v. MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT INDEMNIFICATION CORP.
Supreme Court, Queens County
Motor Vehicle Accident
Facts: Plaintiff claimed he was struck by a motor vehicle and sustained injuries of an ankle. The vehicle’s driver was never apprehended or identified. Plaintiff sued Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp., which compensates victims of motor-vehicle accidents that are caused by underinsured or uninsured motorists. Quintero alleged that the vehicle's driver was negligent in the operation of his or her vehicle. Defense counsel contended that plaintiff fabricated the incident and did not suffer serious injury.
Verdict: DEFENSE VERDICT (Attorney – Noah S. Reiss, March 23, 2012)

UVINO v. BARROWS, et. al.
U.S. District Court, Eastern District New York
General Liability
Facts: Plaintiffs built a multi-million dollar home in the Hamptons. They hired an architect and various contractors to build the home which included a pool house and pool. Hampton Framing was a contractor hired to frame the house. After numerous disagreements with the contractors, litigation ensued, which included an action by plaintiffs against Hampton Framing for negligent construction work.
Verdict: DEFENSE VERDICT (Attorney, Kevin Mahon for Hampton Framing, March 16, 2012)

PISARIK v. SAGER, JR.
Supreme Court, Nassau County
Motor Vehicle Accident
Facts: Plaintiff was struck by a motor vehicle and sustained injuries of a leg, a rib and a shoulder. Defendant claimed that the plaintiff stepped into the immediate path of his vehicle and was unavoidable. Plaintiff had a blood-alcohol concentration of 0.23 and as a result was grossly intoxicated according to defense’s expert witness.
Verdict: DEFENSE VERDICT (Attorney – Gregory S. Nelson, July 14, 2011)

MASAROF v. NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY
Supreme Court, New York County
Municipal Liability
Facts: Plaintiff fell while she was descending a stairway of a subway station. She sustained wrist injuries. Plaintiff alleged that defendant was negligent in its maintenance of the premises which resulted in a dangerous condition. Defense counsel contended that the photographs did not reveal a dangerous or defective condition. He claimed that plaintiff regularly traversed the stairway during the 11 years that preceded the accident and that she never reported a defect. Plaintiff sought recovery of $450,000 for past and future pain and suffering.
Demand: $450,000
Verdict: DEFENSE VERDICT (Attorney – Kevin F. Mahon, June 28, 2011)

WISE v. CHARLES, LEMORIN, MEYRE AND MEYRE
Supreme Court, Suffolk County
Motor Vehicle
Facts: Plaintiff was involved in a multi-vehicle accident while driving to work on the Southern State Parkway. Plaintiff sued the drivers of the two other vehicles involved in the accident and the respective owners of those vehicles. Plaintiff alleged that the drivers' negligent operations of their vehicles had caused him to suffer significant leg and knee injuries and that the owners were vicariously liable for the drivers' negligence. One co-defendant cut the plaintiff off and another co-defendant hit plaintiff shortly after. Plaintiff's suit sought damages for past and future pain and suffering, past and future medical costs and past lost earnings. Approximately 18 months after the accident plaintiff underwent surgery and was out of work for 6 months. Defendants’ radiologist expert opined that plaintiff’s meniscal tear was degenerative and predated the accident.
Verdict: DEFENSE VERDICT (Attorney - Robyn B. Goodman, June 13, 2011)

TAZARU ISHIMARU v. NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY and FLOYD
Supreme Court, New York County
Motor Vehicle Accident
Facts: Plaintiff boarded a bus. After she paid her fare, she began to walk to a seat. The bus began moving, and she fell. She claimed that she sustained injuries to an ankle and a hip. Plaintiff sustained a fracture of the neck, the left femur, the left tibia and the hip. She sought recovery for past and future pain and suffering.
Verdict: DEFENSE VERDICT (Attorney – Kevin F. Mahon, June 8, 2011)

JEANNA SCANLON v. THE NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY
Premises Liability
Facts: Plaintiff tripped on a subway platform location at Broadway and West 168th Street. She alleged that the New York City Transit Authority was negligent in its maintenance of the premises which created a dangerous condition. Plaintiff sought damages for a damaged tooth, fractured nose and a herniated disc.
Verdict: DEFENSE VERDICT (Attorney – Jeoungson Kim, May 26, 2011)

WILLIAM GARCIA v. NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY
Premises Liability
Facts: Plaintiff slipped while walking on a stairway which led to a subway station at West 207th Street. He alleged that the New York City Transit Authority was negligent in its maintenance of the premises which created a dangerous condition. Plaintiff claimed to have slipped on snow but acknowledged the stairway was shoveled. Plaintiff sought damages for a fractured right leg and a torn meniscus.
Verdict: DEFENSE VERDICT (Attorney – Jeoungson Kim, January 26, 2011)

TORIN HYLOR, SIMONE BROADNAX v. VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS, CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK, INC., & THE CITY OF NEW YORK
Negligent Repair
Facts: Plaintiffs were riding a motorcycle together when they hit a series of bumps and depressions in the road causing the driver to lose control and the motorcycle to overturn. Plaintiffs sought damages for severe road rash, second and third degree burns, and abrasions and scaring to multiple areas of their body.
Verdict: DEFENSE VERDICT (Attorney – Michael V. Campanile, November 19, 2010)

RAFAEL BONZON v. THE NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY
Premises Liability
Facts: On May 9, 2007, plaintiff tripped and fell down a flight of stairs that led to the 103rd Street subway station at Lexington Avenue. The plaintiff claimed that the New York City Transit Authority was negligent in its maintenance of the premises. Plaintiff argued that the stairs could have been safer if there were stairs on both sides. Plaintiff sought damages for a broken nose, dislocated finger and headaches.
Verdict: DEFENSE VERDICT (Attorney – Barry M. Viuker, September 29, 2010)

MARIA TRETTER v. TOWN OF NEW HARTFORD AND SHANE YOXALL
Excessive Force
Facts: Plaintiff was involved in a dispute with her boyfriend who bent her car key so she could not start the vehicle. Plaintiff contacted the police who arrived and arrested her for driving while intoxicated. The plaintiff claimed the officers used excessive force when arresting her. Plaintiff sought damages for a fractures wrist and emotional distress.
Verdict: DEFENSE VERDICT (Attorney – Carl S. Sandel, June 23, 2010)

WALKER v. MOTOR VEHICLE INDEMNIFICATION CORP.
Supreme Court, Kings County
Motor Vehicle Accident
Facts: Plaintiff was struck by a motor vehicle. The vehicle's driver never stopped and was never identified. Plaintiff sustained an injury to his head. Plaintiff sued Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp., which provides compensation to accident victims caused by underinsured or uninsured motorists. Plaintiff alleged that the vehicle's driver was negligent in the operation of his or her vehicle. Plaintiff claimed that he suffers a residual reduction of his right eye's vision and severe residual headaches. Plaintiff sought recovery of damages for his past and future pain and suffering. Defense counsel contended that the plaintiff was not wearing his eyeglasses and that, as such, he did not see the turning vehicle approach and simply walked into the vehicle's path.
Verdict: DEFENSE VERDICT (Attorney- Paul Youkilis, February 2, 2010)

NELSON SEGARRA AND WANDA ALERS-GRIGG v. NATIONWIDE MAINTENANCE INC. AND PETER DEORTENTIS
Motor Vehicle Accident
Facts: Plaintiff, a truck driver, was driving on the Bruckner Expressway. His vehicle’s was rear-ended by a pickup truck that was driven by the defendant. The plaintiff claimed to have sustained injuries to his ankle, knee, leg, thigh and back. Plaintiff sought medical expenses, lost earnings, and pain and suffering.
Verdict: DEFENSE VERDICT (Attorney – Kenneth E. Pitcoff, November 23, 2009)

MICHAEL DEGENNERO v. THE NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY
Motor Vehicle Accident
Facts: Plaintiff claimed that while riding as a passenger on a public bus at approximately 4:00 P.M. on 42nd Street between Eighth and Ninth Avenues, the bus made an abrupt stop, causing him to lose his footing and sustain a severe injury to the head. Diagnostic tests revealed that plaintiff had sustained a brain hemorrhage, which lead to the constant recurrence of seizures, in addition to cognitive difficulties, language difficulties and difficulties in higher functioning. Plaintiff sought recovery of damages in the amount of ten million dollars ($10,000,000.00) for his past and future pain and suffering.
Verdict: DEFENSE VERDICT (Attorney – Joseph F. Dunne, October 30, 2009)

JOHN YODICE v. THE NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY AND "JOHN DOE"
Motor Vehicle Accident
Facts: Plaintiff, John Yodice, claimed that while riding as a passenger on a public bus on Richmond Avenue in Richmond, New York, the bus made a sudden stop, propelling him forward at which point he struck the bus’s windshield. Plaintiff ultimately claimed that he suffered a strain of his back, radiculopathy that stemmed from his spine’s C5 and C6 levels, and gliosis. He also claimed that his head’s injury led to post-traumatic stress disorder, post-concussion syndrome, vertigo, blurring of his vision, impairment of his auditory and visual perception, impairment of his neuropsychological functions, and significant, broad-based impairment of cognitive functions such as his memory and speech.
Demand: $750,000
Verdict: DEFENSE VERDICT (Attorney – Michael V. Campanile, August 5, 2009)

WAITE-BURKE v. NYCTA & MANHATTAN & BRONX SURFACE TRANSIT OPERATION AUTHORITY
Motor Vehicle Accident
Facts: Plaintiff was a passenger on an accordion bus traveling between West 122nd and West 123rd streets in Manhattan. She claimed to have been thrown to the floor of the bus while it was moving and alleged she sustained injuries to her back, knee and shoulder. Plaintiff sought lost earnings, future lost earnings, physician’s expenses and hospital expenses.
Demand: $100,000
Verdict: DEFENSE VERDICT (Attorney – Danielle M. Peterson, July 9, 2009)

MATTHEW KOZIARZ v. THE NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY, MABSTOA and MICHAEL BRUSCELLA
Motor Vehicle Accident
Facts: Plaintiff, Matthew Koziarz, claimed that he was struck by a bus operated by Michael Bruscella on Madison Avenue in Manhattan, causing him to sustain a degloving injury of his right leg. He also sustained a bimalleolar fracture--a fracture of both sides of the ankle's malleolus, which is the ankle's bony protuberance. Plaintiff sought recovery of a total of $5 million for his past and future pain and suffering.
Demand: $1,500,000
Verdict: DEFENSE VERDICT (Attorney – Kevin G. Faley, for The New York City Transit Authority and Michael Bruscella, July 8, 2009)

FRANCES L. WALL v. THE TOWN OF NISKAYUNA
Municipal Liability
Facts: In 1999, Plaintiff, Frances Wall, a police sergeant employed by the town of Niskayuna, learned that two other sergeants, Thomas Constantine and Lewis Moskowitz, had been promoted to lieutenant. Wall was in her 15th year with the police department and had four years of seniority over both men.  In 2001, two other lieutenant positions became available. Wall and four other sergeants applied, and she received the third-best score on the civil-service exam. The promotions were awarded to two men, one with a lower test score.  In 2004, another lieutenant position became available. Once again, Wall and a male sergeant applied and she received a higher test score. The male received the promotion.  In 2005, Wall was denied another lieutenant position, which was given to a male who did not take the required exam.  Wall sued the town alleging gender-based discrimination. She also claimed retaliation as a result of her lawsuit.
Demand: $750,000.00
Verdict: DEFENSE VERDICT (Attorney - Kenneth E. Pitcoff and Carl S. Sandel, May 23, 2009)

ROSALIND COLE v. MARC JOHNSON D.D.S. LENOX HILL HOSPITAL AND RICHARD G. GRAY, D.M.D.
Medical Malpractice
Facts: Plaintiff Rosalind Cole, 73, a literary agent, was presented to Dr. Marc Johnson. Cole reported that she was suffering pain that stemmed from the lower portion of the left side of her mouth. Johnson performed X-rays, and he determined that Cole was suffering severe decay of several teeth, though he did not detect an infection. On May 14, 2003, Cole was presented to the office of an oral surgeon, Dr. Richard Gray. She was evaluated by Gray’s partner, who recommended extraction of several teeth. On May 19, 2003, Gray reexamined Cole and opined that Cole was suffering an intra-oral abscess that was causing significant swelling, and he recommended hospitalization and the administration of intravenous antibiotics. Cole consulted her primary physician, who issued a referral to Lenox Hill Hospital, in Manhattan. Cole suffers permanent lockjaw and fibrosis of the masseter muscle surrounding the jaw. As a result, her mouth cannot be opened beyond 2 millimeters. The case’s experts agreed that the condition is permanent and a product of muscular damage that was caused by the abscess and the infection
Demand: $2,000,000 (total, from all defendants)
Verdict: DEFENSE VERDICT (Attorney – Philip Smith, for Marc Johnson D.D.S., February 18, 2009)

Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.