On the Pulse…Defense Verdicts and Successful Litigation Results*
CASUALTY DEPARTMENT
Sean Greenwalt (Tampa, FL) successfully argued a motion to dismiss due to the plaintiff’s failure to prosecute. The plaintiff filed a PIP/No-Fault action and then failed to file any documents or take any affirmative action for more than three years. The plaintiff had three months to prepare for the motion to dismiss hearing, but only filed a notice for trial two days before the hearing and then claimed it had created sufficient record activity. However, the Florida Rules require record activity within 60 days of a hearing notice for failure to prosecute and a statement of good cause within five days, if no record activity occurred. The court agreed with our argument that the plaintiff’s notice for trial was untimely and did not qualify as a statement of good cause and dismissed the case.
Christopher Reeser and Coryn Hubbert (both of Harrisburg, PA) obtained summary judgment on behalf of two homeowners in a premises liability action. One of the homeowners called his father, the plaintiff, asking him to come to his house because he was having his roof replaced and had concerns about the work being done. The plaintiff arrived at the home and observed nails and other debris strewn about the entire property. Nonetheless, he entered the property to assess the roofing work and took care to avoid stepping on any nails. As he was leaving the property, he stepped on a nail, which went through his foot. The plaintiff asserted claims of negligence against both homeowners and also attempted to assert that, because his son requested that he come to inspect the roofing work, he was a business invitee rather than a licensee. Chris and Coryn argued that the plaintiff was a licensee as he was a social guest who was merely providing advice to his son. They further argued that the homeowners owed no duty to the plaintiff as he knew the nails were strewn about the property and he understood the risk involved in walking there. Chris and Coryn also argued that the plaintiff’s claim was barred by assumption of risk because as he was aware of the nails on the property and, nonetheless, voluntarily proceeded to walk onto the property. The court agreed and granted summary judgment in favor of the homeowners.
In a premises liability case involving problematic liability for our client, Olivia O’Reilly (Philadelphia, PA) was able to achieve an extremely favorable settlement after taking the plaintiff’s deposition. Olivia’s tactical and thorough deposition resulted in plaintiff’s counsel agreeing to remand the case to arbitration and, eventually, taking a mere $5,000 to settle the case. The plaintiff had initially demanded six figures.
Walter Klekotka and Ashley Davis (both of Mount Laurel, NJ) were granted summary judgment in a slip-and-fall case where the plaintiff claimed to have slipped and fell on snow/ice in a parking lot when getting into her car. Our client and one of the co-defendants had property lines next to each other. Based on the accident report, the plaintiff’s testimony and our expert report, we argued that the plaintiff did not fall on our property and, as a result, we owed her no duty. The judge agreed and dismissed all claims against us.
Ian Glick (Melville, NY) obtained a significant win in a New York Labor Law action, securing partial summary judgment for a municipal library and defeating the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on liability. The plaintiff alleged negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240, and 241(6) after sustaining injuries when roof trusses collapsed on a construction project managed by a co-defendant on property owned by the municipal library. He claimed the collapse resulted from inadequate bracing. Following discovery, the plaintiff sought summary judgment under Labor Law § 240, asserting absolute liability against the library as the property owner. Ian opposed the motion and sought partial summary judgment dismissing all claims against the non-property-owning clients, all but the § 240 claim against the library, dismissal of the co-defendant’s cross-claims, and contractual and common law indemnification from the plaintiff’s employer. The court agreed with Ian’s arguments, denying the plaintiff’s motion after finding questions of fact as to whether the plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of the accident. The court also granted Ian’s motion, in part, dismissing all claims against the non-property-owning clients, all but the § 240 claim against the library, dismissing the co-defendant’s cross-claims, and granting the library unconditional contractual indemnification from the plaintiff’s employer prior to any finding of liability.
Evan Saltzman’s (Philadelphia, PA) motion for summary judgment was granted, in part, in a Philadelphia jury case where our client was driving his company’s car. Evan argued on behalf of the corporate entity that, despite the fact that our client was driving a company car and his job consisted of travel, he was not in the course and scope of his employment at the time of the accident. For the loss of consortium claim, Evan argued the plaintiff had not provided evidence of record to support this claim. Therefore, the loss of consortium claims were also dismissed.
Matthew Gray (Melville, NY) successfully saved his client over $113,000 in a New York No-Fault/PIP action. The applicant, a major medical provider, filed an arbitration matter in the total amount of $114,531.00, alleging our client owed it for the claimant’s unpaid medical bills following a major motor vehicle accident. After the claimant had been involved in a motor vehicle accident, he sought payment for medical treatment(s) rendered post-accident. Counsel for the medical provider argued that the medical billing was never properly paid, and, therefore, payment of the claims was overdue. However, Matthew successfully argued at the arbitration hearing that the applicant’s demand amount was greatly over-exaggerated and that the amount in dispute must be limited to the appropriate fee schedule limit of $621.06. While the arbitrator ruled in the applicant’s favor (an expected outcome, given the facts and law), the arbitrator did limit the demand to the $621.06 fee schedule amount, thus saving nearly $113,909.94 (or 99.46%) in exposure.
Ryan Burns, Kimberly Berman, and Angie Colorado (all of Fort Lauderdale, FL) won summary judgment in a foodborne illness wrongful death case. The plaintiff filed a wrongful death action against multiple parties, including the seafood supplier, distributors, transporters, and the restaurant that served the decedent. The plaintiff alleged the decedent died as a result of eating raw oysters that contained vibrio vulnificus. Ryan, Kimberly, and Angie represented the supplier and argued there was no evidence the oysters were defective when they left the supplier’s hands. An expert was retained to support our motion for summary judgment. The expert prepared an affidavit citing the applicable duties pertaining to the harvesting, processing, and transportation of the oysters and stated the supplier did not breach any of the applicable duties. Utilizing calculated pressure tactics in a long-term strategy execution, plaintiff’s counsel eventually conceded that the record evidence did not support a finding that the supplier breached its duties, resulting in the court granting summary judgment. The case remains ongoing with multimillion dollar demands against the remaining defendants.
Taylor Naughton and Dominic DeLuca (both of Jacksonville, FL) received summary judgment in a vehicular accident case involving disputed liability. Mr. Thurman was the third vehicle in a three-car collision in which the first vehicle admitted fault and was ticketed. Following the accident, the plaintiffs claimed they were in a fourth vehicle and alleged that Mr. Thurman caused the crash. When the claim was denied—and on the eve of the implementation of tort reform—the plaintiffs filed individual lawsuits against Mr. Thurman alone. The cases were assigned to Taylor, who served discovery aimed at obtaining evidence to support the defense. Taylor subpoenaed the repair shop that serviced Mr. Thurman’s vehicle and obtained records confirming that there was no front-end damage. When the plaintiffs failed to respond to discovery, we prepared motions for summary judgment in both cases. In response, only one plaintiff submitted an affidavit, while Mr. Thurman provided his own affidavit denying the allegations. Dominic argued the motions, demonstrating that the evidence showed the plaintiffs were not involved in the collision and that Mr. Thurman bore no fault. The court ruled in our favor in both cases. Before the orders could be entered, however, the plaintiffs filed notices of voluntary dismissal with prejudice. Before moving for summary judgment, Taylor had served Proposals for Settlement on the plaintiffs and their counsel. After the dismissals, Dominic filed a motion establishing entitlement to attorney’s fees, and the parties ultimately reached an agreement resolving all fees and costs in both cases.
Erica Cagan (Jacksonville, FL) won a motion to dismiss in a property dispute matter by convincing the court that the plaintiff failed to join an indispensable party. The plaintiffs claimed that our client’s underground utility services encroached onto their property and demanded our client remove them. Erica successfully argued the utilities were not owned, controlled, or maintained by our client, and that Choctawhatchee Electric Cooperative, Inc. (CHELCO), which did own and control them, was an indispensable party whose absence from the suit prevented a complete and enforceable judgment. The plaintiffs argued that CHELCO would move the utilities at our client’s request; therefore, they argued, should the court consider CHELCO indispensable, the appropriate remedy was for our client to join CHELCO. The court rejected these arguments and ruled in our client’s favor.
Adam Barnes and Ryan Joyce (both of Pittsburgh, PA) were successful in having the Commonwealth Court affirm the trial court’s order sustaining preliminary objections to a complaint. The plaintiff sought to recover compensatory damages for property damage to its building due to flooding alleged to be the result of an improperly constructed sewage separation line. Preliminary objections were filed on the grounds that the lawsuit was filed after the expiration of the two-year statute of limitations. Those objections were sustained by the trial court. On appeal, the plaintiff sought to reverse the trial court’s decision on the grounds that the complaint averred sufficient facts to support a claim for continuous trespass. The Commonwealth Court affirmed the trial court’s decision on the grounds that the plaintiff did not dispute that the lawsuit was filed beyond the two-year statute of limitations and on the plaintiff’s failure to include a cause of action for continuous trespass.
Brielle Winkler (Mount Laurel, NJ) obtained summary judgment in the Gloucester County Superior Court on behalf of a supermarket in a slip-and-fall-on-ice case that occurred in a multiunit commercial parking lot. The plaintiff brought suit against multiple stores after falling on black ice in a shared parking lot. On the day in question, the plaintiff had not patronized our client’s store, but she had shopped at the store adjacent to our client. The court granted summary judgment to our client because, as a tenant in a multi-unit shopping center, it did not owe a duty to maintain the parking lot. The landlord had a contractual obligation to do so.
Brendan Smith (Orlando, FL) was successful in a case where the consumer filed a claim with the BBB Auto Line seeking to have his 2024 Lamborghini Revuelto repurchased under the Florida Lemon Law. Under this statute, if the vehicle is out of service more than 30 days, the vehicle is a lemon and a buyback is appropriate. The vehicle in this case had over 100 days out of service. Brendan successfully argued the vehicle was not originally sold in Florida and, thus, not eligible for relief under the Florida Lemon Law. Had Brendan lost at the BBB level, our client would have had to repurchase a vehicle with a sticker price of $787,058.00. The consumer claimed that he paid $837,058.00 for the vehicle and likely would have been awarded that amount as a refund. The next step will to be defend this before the Attorney General’s Lemon Law Arbitration Division.
Brittany Bakshi and Steve Sess (both of Harrisburg, PA) won summary judgment in a slip-and-fall case. The plaintiffs, a husband and wife, alleged the husband suffered injuries following a slip and fall, due to claimed faulty steps and staircase, as he was performing work at a residence. The plaintiffs brought a lawsuit against the property owners, who then brought a claim against our client, a general contractor. During the course of litigation, the plaintiffs repeatedly failed to provide discovery responses, leading to a motion to compel, which was granted, followed by a motion for sanctions, that requested that the plaintiffs be precluded from offering evidence in support of their claims. Sanctions were granted. We filed a joint motion for summary judgment along with the property owners, arguing the plaintiffs could not support a prima facie claim of negligence as they could not prove damages. The court disagreed with the plaintiffs’ claims that summary judgment was overbroad and not properly tailored to address their discovery violations. The court, instead, relied on the plaintiffs’ continued failure to provide discovery and granted our joint motion for summary judgment.
Emily Davis (Cincinnati, OH) successfully negotiated the dismissal of a property holdings company in a personal injury matter brought in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. The plaintiff alleged that her minor daughter slipped and fell in a Dollar General store. The property holdings company subleased the property to Walgreens, who, in turn, subleased the property to Dollar General. Emily successfully argued that the property holdings company was not in possession of the property, nor did it have any control of the premises or its day-to-day operations. Accordingly, Walgreens and/or Dollar General were the responsible parties for handling any latent hazardous conditions. The plaintiff agreed to file a joint motion to substitute Walgreens for all claims brought against the property holdings company, resulting in the dismissal of the property holdings company from the lawsuit.
Elizabeth Guariglia and Adam Calvert (both of New York, NY) successfully obtained summary judgment in a multi-vehicle collision case before the Kings County Supreme Court. Our client was stopped at a red light when their vehicle was hit from behind, causing it to propel into another vehicle directly in front of it. We filed for summary judgment, which was granted after the court found that the vehicle that rear-ended our client was responsible creating a chain reaction, resulting in the damage of multiple vehicles.
Ralph Bocchino and Robert McCormick (both of Philadelphia, PA) successfully received summary judgment in a slip-and-fall case in Philadelphia after their Rule 1036 motion was earlier denied. The plaintiff brought a premises liability suit after sustaining injuries from a slip and fall on a street in Philadelphia. The plaintiff claimed that our clients’ property contained a metal protrusion above the pedestrian walkway, creating a dangerous condition. We filed a motion to dismiss on April 24, 2025, arguing that our clients had no affiliation with the property. The court denied this motion for being outside the scope of Pa.R.C.P. 1036. After unsuccessfully attempting to obtain signatures for a stipulation of dismissal, we filed a second motion to dismiss on December 10, 2025, arguing prejudice upon the completion of discovery, which the court ultimately granted.
Ralph Bocchino (Philadelphia, PA), Kevin Todorow (Philadelphia, PA), and Peter Lentini (Mount Laurel, NJ) successfully obtained reconsideration of the original denial of a motion for summary judgment before the Court of Common Pleas, moments before heading to a jury trial. In a construction accident case involving a leading personal injury firm, the plaintiff’s were demanding $35 million. We filed a motion for summary judgment on the basis of Patton v. Worthington, et al., arguing that our general contractor and subcontractor were statutory employers of the plaintiff. The original motion was denied. However, we argued Yoder before the Court of Common Pleas, filing a motion for reconsideration. On the eve of the trial, two weeks before selecting jury members, our motion was granted. This major decision is very rare, especially in Philadelphia, making this a significant win for our clients.
Allison Snyder, Sarah L. Schwartz, and Mark Wellman (all of New York, NY) successfully obtained summary judgment in a trip-and-fall action arising from a sidewalk ramp at the Kings County Supreme Court. The plaintiff was allegedly injured after stepping onto a rubber mat positioned between the roadway and sidewalk in an area where construction activity was underway. Our client, a utility company, had performed roadway work in the general vicinity of the accident location. Despite extensive discovery, the contractor responsible for placing the mat was never identified. We argued that our client did not perform work in the specific portion of the intersection where the accident occurred, and thus neither created nor contributed to the alleged defect. The court agreed, granting summary judgment and dismissing all claims against our client.
Christopher Block and Paul Lanza (both of Roseland, NJ) successfully obtained a defense verdict in a trucking accident in New Jersey. The plaintiff claimed that our client merged into her lane at the George Washington Bridge toll plaza causing her to sustain neck and back injuries for which she underwent two spinal surgeries. Our client testified that both of their lanes ended and, because they were required to merge, he had the right-of-way since the front of his truck was ahead of the front of her vehicle. Our accident reconstruction expert confirmed that our driver had the right-of-way and opined that plaintiff was the sole cause of the accident. We also disputed the causation of plaintiff’s alleged injuries based on the very limited property damage to her vehicle, as well as the fact that she had prior, similar injuries. After little more than an hour of deliberations, the jury returned a verdict finding that our driver was not negligent. The trial team was assisted by associate attorney, Haleigh Catalano, and paralegal, Kelly Dermody, who provided critical support with motions in limine and trial management.
HEALTH CARE DEPARTMENT
Robert Evers, Nataliana Guida, and paralegal, Elina Sheldon (all of Roseland, NJ) secured a defense verdict on behalf of an oral surgeon in a medical malpractice matter. The plaintiff alleged that our client deviated from accepted standards of care when extracting four wisdom teeth resulting in permanent injury to the inferior alveolar nerve. The jury returned a unanimous verdict for the defense.
Michael Roberts and David Williamson (both of Cincinnati, OH) successfully secured a dismissal on behalf of a health care system at oral argument via a motion to dismiss. We argued that the plaintiff’s cause of action could not proceed as she failed to comply with the Affidavit of Merit requirement under Civil Rule 10(D)(2) and, thus, could not establish the adequacy of her complaint. The court agreed and dismissed plaintiff’s complaint in its entirety.
Michael Roberts (Cincinnati, OH) was successful in having a dental malpractice case dismissed at trial. The plaintiff alleged, among other things, that our client improperly placed a crown on a tooth, leading to a severe infection. At the trial, Michael argued that this case should be dismissed as the plaintiff failed to provide an affidavit of merit and expert testimony. The magistrate agreed and entered a dismissal on behalf of our clients.
PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY DEPARTMENT
Michael Roberts (Cincinnati, OH) received a defense verdict after bench trial in an insurance exclusionary clause dispute. The plaintiff’s personal property in a storage unit was damaged when a municipal water main broke outside the storage facility. The claims representative offered the full policy limits before trial. However, the plaintiff sought recovery of the full claim amount for her damaged property. Mike argued that her recovery was specifically excluded by the water damage exclusion provision within her insurance policy. The judge agreed and concluded that the water main was part of a containment system for water and the exclusionary clause was applicable.
Kimberly Berman and Matthew Wildner (both of Fort Lauderdale, FL) won an affirmance by the Fourth District Court of Appeal of a final order dismissing claims against our client, a professional engineer and his engineering firm in a construction defect case. The appeal presented an issue of whether a non-supervisory engineer and his firm can be held liable for professional negligence in a situation where they were retained by a third-party to examine and inspect a contractor’s work and then the contractor was told by the third-party to stop work. The trial court dismissed the professional negligence claims with prejudice and without oral argument, the appellate court affirmed.
Christin Kochel (King of Prussia, PA) obtained a favorable decision in an underinsured motorist claim that proceeded to binding arbitration. The plaintiff was involved in a rear-end motor vehicle accident. Following the accident, the plaintiff settled her case with the tortfeasor for the $100,000 in bodily injury limits. Thereafter, she submitted an underinsured motorist (UIM) claim to her insurer, requesting the $100,000 in UIM limits and claiming significant injuries from the accident, including a concussion with post-concussive symptoms, trigeminal neuralgia, a left shoulder tear, and neck pain. The plaintiff underwent extensive treatment with pain management doctors, orthopedists, and neurologists, and underwent physical therapy, vision therapy, and multiple injections. As of the date of the arbitration, and three years after the accident, the plaintiff was still treating and receiving Botox injections for ongoing headaches. The plaintiff also obtained a Life Care Plan Report, opining she will incur almost $400,000 in future medical costs. Following the arbitration, the Arbitrator awarded the plaintiff and her husband $115,000 for pain and suffering and loss of consortium as well as the stipulated lien and out-of-pocket expenses of over $6,000, for a total arbitration award of a little less than $122,000. Our client had already agreed to pay $20,000 as the low amount. After applying the $100,000 third-party credit, the plaintiffs were awarded a little less than $22,000—the case was properly valued.
Christopher Conrad (Harrisburg, PA) and Jacob Gilboy (Scranton, PA) were successful in a Dauphin County, Pennsylvania, case stemming from an alleged faulty deed certificate filed in conjunction with a prior real estate transaction. The plaintiff brought claims of negligence, quiet title/declaratory relief, and fraud. We prepared and filed preliminary objections to plaintiff’s complaint and amended compliant. Following oral argument, our preliminary objections were granted, disposing of the plaintiff’s action on substantive legal grounds and on the basis that the plaintiff’s pleadings were never properly served upon our client under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure.
Christopher Conrad (Harrisburg, PA) and Jacob Gilboy (Scranton, PA) successfully represented a school district in a retaliation, slander, and defamation case. The suit was filed against the school district, its former Title IX coordinator, and its athletic director following a coach’s removal. We prepared and filed preliminary objections to the complaint on substantive legal grounds. Following oral argument, our preliminary objections were granted. The plaintiff did not appeal and voluntarily withdrew his action.
Jack Slimm (Mount Laurel, NJ) obtained an order for summary judgment in a legal malpractice action arising out of estate distributions, which were handled by our client, an attorney who specializes in administration of estates.
Patricia McDonagh (Roseland, NJ) won an affirmance by the New Jersey Appellate Division of orders granting summary judgment and denying the plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration pursuant to the exclusive remedy provision of the New Jersey Workers’ Compensation Act. Our client and the plaintiff were co-employees of the subcontractor, which did not carry worker’s compensation insurance as required by the Act. Therefore, the plaintiff was paid worker’s compensation benefits by the general contractor’s insurance carrier pursuant to N.J.S.A. 34:15-79. The appeal presented issues of whether the plaintiff was an employee or a casual employee of the employer and whether a general contractor/subcontractor relationship existed and worker’s compensation benefits were properly paid to the plaintiff, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 34:15-79.
Michele Frisbie and Kevin Todorow (both of King of Prussia, PA) received summary judgment in favor of a HOA, with the court holding that the HOA had no duty to protect the plaintiffs from the attacks of neighbors’ dangerous dog. On two occasions, the plaintiffs were attacked by their neighbors’ dogs, causing serious injuries and permanent scarring. The plaintiffs alleged that the HOA had a duty to protect them from the dogs. The court granted summary judgment for the HOA, holding that under McMahon v. Pleasant Valley West Association, 952 A.2d 731 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008), a HOA has a “duty to the members of the common-interest community to use ordinary care and prudence in managing the property of the community that is subject to its control.” However, that duty does not extend to removing an allegedly dangerous dog as the HOA has neither the obligation nor the ability to remove dogs from the community.
Ray Freudiger and Michael Roberts (both of Cincinnati, OH) obtained a dismissal of an action on a motion to dismiss after oral argument. The plaintiff joined our clients and a wealth of other defendants and alleged, among other things, that our clients failed to look out for his child’s best interests and broke confidentiality. Due to the nature of the allegations in the complaint, we moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Civ. R. 12(b)(6). We also argued that the court did not have jurisdiction over this matter as the plaintiff failed to perfect service on our clients. The court agreed with these arguments and dismissed the plaintiff’s action in its entirety.
Ray Freudiger and Michael Roberts (both of Cincinnati, OH) recently secured a significant victory on summary judgment on behalf of their client, an insurance agency. The plaintiff alleged that the agency failed to update his policy to reflect the appreciation in value of his classic motor vehicle. However, Ray and Michael were able to demonstrate that Ohio law does not impose a duty on an insurance agency to unilaterally increase the limits of an insured’s coverage absent a specific request to do so. In addition, Ray and Michael were able to establish that their client did not owe the plaintiff a fiduciary duty. The court agreed with their position and dismissed the plaintiff’s claims in their entirety.
John Hare and Shane Haselbarth (both of Philadelphia, PA) convinced the Superior Court of Pennsylvania to vacate a $1.09 billion jury verdict and remand for a new trial. The court held that the jury had not been properly instructed on the elements of a crashworthiness claim under Pennsylvania law. The court’s ruling received press coverage in both The Legal Intelligencer and The Philadelphia Inquirer.
Diane Toner and Matt Flanagan (both of New York, NY) successfully defended an appeal from the denial of the plaintiff’s motion to set aside the verdict following a unanimous jury verdict in favor of our clients. The plaintiff, Hyon S. Yi, as administrator of the Estate of Chin W. Yi, commenced this action against our clients alleging causes of action for legal malpractice, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and a violation of Judiciary Law § 487. The plaintiff alleged that our clients committed legal malpractice by: (1) failing to assert claims in the underlying action; (2) changing the terms of the retainer agreement to a contingency agreement after discovering that settlement of the underlying action was imminent; (3) failing to assert direct shareholder claims against the corporate defendant in the underlying action; (4) failing to assert fiduciary duty claims against the majority shareholders of the corporate defendant; (5) failing to seek a receivership or attach the assets of Eastern Farms; (6) and failing to demand prejudgment interest in the second underlying action brought in 2015. The jury found in favor of our clients on all counts. Diane was able to secure dismissal of the plaintiff’s appeal by arguing that the order denying the plaintiff’s motion to set aside the jury verdict was an intermediate order from which there was no right of direct appeal once the final judgment was entered, and that plaintiff did not appeal from the final judgment. The Appellate Division agreed and dismissed the appeal.
Walter Kawalec and Matthew Behr (both Mount Laurel, NJ) obtained an affirmance of summary judgment from the New Jersey Appellate Division in favor of our client in a claim involving the Fair Housing Act and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination. Our client, a homeowners association, sought to enforce the Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions which did not permit the homeowners to own and keep chickens, a coop, and a run in their backyard. The homeowners sought an accommodation, arguing that the chickens were emotional support animals. The Appellate Division rejected this argument and also dismissed all of the counterclaims for intentional infliction of emotional distress, fraud, and abuse of process.
Michael Jacobson (New York, NY) was successful in having a legal malpractice case, with breach of fiduciary duty, fraudulent misrepresentation, and a Judiciary Law 487 claim, dismissed. The plaintiff retained our clients to bring an employment discrimination claim against the plaintiff’s former employer, which had terminated his employment in March of 2014. Our clients filed a complaint against the employer in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County. The employer successfully moved to compel arbitration of the claim, and the case was arbitrated in an American Arbitration Association proceeding. Following a four-day hearing, the arbitrator ruled against the plaintiff. In his decision, the arbitrator found that the employer successfully proffered a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the plaintiff’s termination. In our motion to dismiss the malpractice claim, we argued that the plaintiff’s complaint failed to allege negligent conduct and proximate causation, particularly in view of the arbitrator’s findings in the underlying proceeding. Additionally, we argued that, because the plaintiff’s other three causes of action were duplicative of his cause of action for legal malpractice, they should also be dismissed. We also argued that a Judiciary Law § 487 claim cannot be based on attorney conduct in an underlying arbitration proceeding. The judge agreed with all of our arguments and dismissed the case.
Maria Nudelman and Michael Jacobson (both of New York, NY) were successful in having their motion to dismiss granted in a legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty case. Our client represented the plaintiffs in an underlying landlord-tenant proceeding commenced against them by the Department of Housing Preservation and Development of the City of New York (HPD). The plaintiffs, who owned buildings in Brooklyn, allegedly failed to correct over 20 Building Code violations. Our client, who was retained by the managing agent of the buildings, appeared as counsel and executed a Consent Order on behalf of all the respondents in the underlying proceeding, including the plaintiffs. The Consent Order gave the plaintiffs and the other respondents until June 30, 2021, to pay $37,500 to HPD, and if they failed to make the payment, a judgment for $375,000 could be entered against them. The plaintiffs claimed that they never knew about the Consent Order and were not told that they had to make the $37,500 payment. As a result, they allege, a $375,000 judgment was entered against them. We moved to dismiss, arguing that, even if their allegations were true, the claim was barred by the statute of limitations. We further argued that the breach of fiduciary duty claim was simply duplicative of the malpractice claim and should also be dismissed. The court agreed and dismissed both counts.
Sean Govlick (Roseland, NJ) was successful in a case in which former unit owners claimed entitlement to eminent domain proceeds for a condemned common element beach. The claimants contended that entitlement should be determined based on ownership at the time of the taking. We argued that the statute’s distribution provision shows a clear legislative intent to award proceeds only to current unit owners, because the statute expressly allows associations to apply proceeds to repairs and benefits only for current owners. The court agreed and held that proceeds were properly limited to current owners.
Sean Govlick and Christopher Block (both of Roseland, NJ) obtained a case dismissal in a liability matter in New Jersey. The plaintiff alleged that following the cancellation of coverage by a prior carrier, our client accepted payment for workers’ compensation insurance, but failed to provide a certificate of insurance. After the 120-day deadline passed with no Affidavit of Merit (AOM), we filed for dismissal. The plaintiff argued that the AOM statute does not apply to economic losses, and raised for the first time during oral argument, that failing to provide a certificate of insurance is a common knowledge issue that does not require expert testimony. We responded that the statute expressly covers insurance producers, whose alleged negligence typically results in economic rather than physical harm. Additionally, we argued that evaluating the alleged failure to procure coverage requires expert analysis of Department of Banking and Insurance regulations, industry standards, cancellation and reinstatement procedures, certificate implications, underwriting, and what coverage should have existed. The court agreed that the claim is not a common knowledge matter, holding that economic losses fall within the AOM statute, dismissing the case.
Sean Govlick (Roseland) successfully obtained a case dismissal in a matter stemming from a Consumer Fraud Act (CFA) claim. The plaintiff brought a CFA claim, alleging that the agency failed to obtain coverage for an off-site theft. The court dismissed that count with prejudice after we successfully moved for an order holding that insurance producers qualify as learned professionals, pointing to the detailed statutory and regulatory framework governing producers and their express inclusion in the Affidavit of Merit statute. As a result, the CFA did not apply, and the good faith count was dismissed for the same reason.
Jillian Dinehart (Cleveland, OH) was successfully granted summary judgment in a disclosure matter. Our client, the seller of a $400,000 home, completed two disclosures during the sale. The second disclosure did not include all of the same facts as the first disclosure, and failed to identify defects in the roof, which were discovered during an inspection for a failed sale. Although the seller's realtor was aware of the defects, the realtor did not confirm that the disclosure was correct and did not inform the un-represented buyers of the defects. The buyers claimed that the realtor and the seller were involved in a conspiracy after finding evidence that the seller requested the realtor to cancel a showing due to one of the undisclosed defects. Summary judgment was granted pursuant to the doctrine of caveat emptor, with the court finding that the purchase agreement contained an “as is" clause that overcame any misrepresentations. The court further found there was no evidence that the defendants knew of or concealed any of the alleged defects or engaged in any fraud.
Jillian Dinehart (Cleveland, OH) was successful in having a case dismissed after filing for summary judgment. The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed a claim for fraud and breach of fiduciary duty following deposition and a summary judgment motion. The Plaintiff, an investment buyer, claimed that the seller’s realtor disclosed a fire in the basement of the vacant property, but failed to disclose a second fire that allegedly resulted in structural damage. The plaintiff argued that the seller’s realtors were aware that the property was condemned prior to closing. In addition, there was an error on the agency disclosure documents that marked the seller’s realtor as the buyer’s agent. Relying on that misstatement, the plaintiff alleged there was a breach of fiduciary duty. The summary judgment motion argued there were no damages to the property, that the plaintiff lacked any expert analysis as to the loss, that the plaintiff lacked capacity to sue, and that there was no duty of the realtors to disclose the events. The plaintiff dismissed the case without responding to the summary judgment motion.
Jennifer Ruth and Andrew Norfleet (both of Harrisburg, PA) were successful in having preliminary objections sustained in a breach of contract matter. The plaintiffs participated in a program for low-to-moderate income homeowners to complete home renovations and repairs with the goal of increasing energy efficiency. The plaintiffs claimed that work was left incomplete and not performed in a workmanlike manner, alleging a breach of contract and a violation of the Home Improvement Protection Act (HICPA). We filed preliminary objections, which were sustained by the court, resulting in the dismissal of the case with prejudice. The trial team was assisted by paralegal attorney, Kelly Mazer, and administrative assistant, Aimee Paukovits.
Andrew Norfleet and Jennifer Ruth (both of Harrisburg, PA) were successful in having the appellant’s appeal denied at the Court of Common Pleas in Dauphin County, Pennsylvania. The claimant brought a demolition of property claim against our client. We presented substantial evidence, along with Pennsylvania’s historic preservation laws, highlighting that demolition would have an adverse impact on the general historic and architectural nature of the district. The court agreed, denying the appellant’s appeal.
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION DEPARTMENT
Michele Punturi (Philadelphia, PA) successfully prosecuted a termination petition on behalf of a local hospital in a workers’ compensation matter involving a 62-year-old employee with more than 16 years of service who alleged a work-related low back injury. Through diligent efforts to obtain medical records documenting a significant pre-existing history, Michele also successfully defended a review petition that sought to expand the accepted injury beyond a low back sprain. The workers’ compensation judge found the opinions of the defense medical expert—a board-certified orthopedic surgeon—both competent and credible in establishing full recovery. His conclusions were supported by a comprehensive physical examination, as well as his review of the claimant’s medical records and diagnostic studies. The expert noted that the claimant’s reported pain was entirely out of proportion to the clinical findings. Additionally, the claimant’s own treating physician had documented physical abilities far greater than those demonstrated at the IME, underscoring a clear inconsistency. This decision will result in a substantial recoupment of indemnity benefits paid during the litigation through a Supersedeas Fund Recovery.
Tony Natale (King of Prussia, PA) successfully prosecuted a termination petition on behalf of a local municipality. The claimant, a police officer for the borough, sustained a work injury to the neck, back, and lower extremities in the form of aggravations of pre-existing conditions. A termination petition was filed based on the defense expert’s opinion of full recovery. The claimant testified that he was only treated sporadically for the pre-existing condition before the work injury and that his treatment intensified greatly after the work injury. To the contrary, the medical records showed the claimant regularly treated for his medical conditions—three times a week prior to the work injury, all the way up to two days before the work injury. The claimant’s expert was unaware of the prior care, and on cross examination Tony was able to force the expert to agree that the claimant’s base-line condition was equivalent to the current symptomatology. As such, the court granted the full recovery as the claimant reached base line and fully recovered from the work aggravation.
Rachel Ramsay-Lowe and William Murphy (both of Roseland, NJ) received dismissal, without prejudice, in a workers’ compensation claim. The petitioner alleged that a motor vehicle accident on May 5, 2024, resulted in injuries to her neck, back, left side of her body, and her left arm. We filed a motion to dismiss for lack of employment, arguing that the petitioner was never in the employment of our insured. The motion was unopposed, and on November 25, 2025, the judge ordered dismissal of the claim for lack of employment.
Anna Robertelli and William Murphy (both of Roseland, NJ) received dismissal, without prejudice, in an occupational exposure matter. The petitioner alleged occupational exposure from October 2013 to October 2023, resulting in orthopedic and neurologic injuries to his right arm, hand and wrist, including but not limited to carpal tunnel syndrome. Following the petitioner’s failure to timely respond to our discovery requests, we filed a motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution. On December 8, 2025, the judge entered an order to dismiss for lack of prosecution.
Michael Duffy (King of Prussia, PA) and Alana Staniszewski (Pittsburgh, PA) had a claim petition denied where the claimant averred he sustained work-related chemical burns. The claimant testified that while working for the employer, he sat on an overturned trash can to take a brief break before clocking out. After getting up, he noticed his pants and underwear were wet. He punched out and walked to his apartment about a block away. He undressed, took a shower, and noticed his buttocks burning. He put a cream on it, but it became worse. The next morning he sought medical treatment. He was hospitalized from August 3, 2024, until September 3, 2024, as he had second degree chemical burns on his buttocks and the back of his thighs. He received an incision, debridement, and soft tissue necrosis procedure to his perineum, buttock and left thigh. He eventually was released to return to work without restrictions and found fully recovered by his doctor. The claimant submitted medical records and relied upon a one-page report opining that his burns were related to sitting on a wet trash can. No details were provided regarding any specific exposure to chemicals. We presented fact witness testimony detailing the claimant’s job duties and exposure to chemicals, which revealed he was not exposed to any hazardous chemicals, only normal cleaning supplies. Video footage submitted revealed the claimant sitting on the trash can, getting up, moving to another trash can and then leaving without issue; he never looked at his pants or felt his pants to see if they were wet. The workers’ compensation judge found the claimant’s testimony not credible because he would expect the claimant to try to touch his pants, look at it, or dry it off. He did not find the claimant credible regarding showering and then sleeping with the burning sensation before seeking treatment 16-or-more hours later. He found the employer’s fact witness credible. He did not find the claimant’s one-page medical report credible as this claimant’s expert opinion was cursory and provided no explanation other than merely relying on the claimant’s history. Thus, the claim petition was denied and dismissed.
Michael Duffy (King of Prussia, PA) successfully settled a case with no admission of liability and a settlement of $24,500 with no payment of medical bills. The claimant, a mason, alleged he sustained a stroke while at work. According to his testimony, he reported to work in the morning, although he told his supervisors he was not feeling well. He was provided an apprentice and told to take it easy. He left after about two-to-three hours of working. He then went to the hospital, was discharged, and then went back. When he returned, he was told he had a stroke. He was hospitalized for a period of time and then discharged with out-of-work restrictions. His expert testified that the claimant’s job duties as a mason caused his stroke. Specifically, this expert alleged the claimant’s job was physically demanding, he was regularly exposed to concrete dust, and had stressors from supervising an apprentice, all of which caused his stroke. Our expert testified that the claimant’s stroke was the result of his unregulated hypertension and failure to consistently take his blood pressure medication. The employer’s fact witness testimony revealed the claimant did not supervise any apprentice and wore respirators whenever he was exposed to concrete dust. After completing all evidence, claimant’s counsel presented a demand of $310,000 plus payment of medical bills and reimbursement of litigation costs. Because the claimant is a Medicare beneficiary, we recommended to our client to make an offer of $24,500 in order to stay below the Medicare threshold or go to a decision on the merits. We agreed to make the offer. Claimant’s counsel accepted without any further negotiations.
Tony Natale (King of Prussia, PA) successfully obtained a defense verdict in a workers’ compensation matter in Pittsburgh. The claimant sustained a work-related upper-extremity injury and returned to work in a modified capacity. A year after resigning from the position, the claimant alleged a secondary injury to her opposite upper extremity that developed prior to her resignation. The claimant filed a review and reinstatement petition, which we were successful in getting dismissed based on a causation and potential notice defense. The claimant appealed to the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB), arguing that the court did not have a reasonable basis to dismiss the matter. After a heated dispute on the issues of causation and notice, the Board affirmed the lower court, and dismissed the review and reinstatement petitions.
Tony Natale (King of Prussia, PA) was successful in having a suspension petition granted, resulting in a defense verdict. The claimant sustained a catastrophic injury resulting from a steep fall. Our client determined a multitude of serious and semi-permanent diagnoses that were work-related. With some very strict release restrictions, employment was made available to the claimant, which was refused. We presented medical evidence to support claimant’s ability to return to work. In a key cross-examination of a medical expert, it was determined that the claimant was capable of working with the required restrictions. The court granted the petition, suspending indemnity benefits, along with determining that several of the claimant’s diagnoses had been completely resolved
Tony Natale (King of Prussia, PA) successfully obtained a defense verdict in a workplace injury matter in which the claimant sustained wrist and knee injuries after slipping at her workplace. We moved to file a termination petition, alleging a full recovery based on the fact that the claimant’s strains had resolved, and her current complaints were made on the basis of pre-existing severe arthritis. During cross examination, an expert testifying on the claimant’s behalf admitted that the arthritis was the significant contributing factor to the claimants’ ongoing pain and disability. The court found the claimant to be fully recovered from the work injuries and that any ongoing complaints were unrelated.
Ben Durstein (Wilmington, DE) convinced the Industrial Accident Board to grant an employer’s petition to terminate total disability benefits. The claimant’s medical expert, the treating doctor, did not believe the claimant could work in any capacity due to her work-related low-back injury. However, the Board found the employer’s medical expert’s opinions to be more credible and determined that the claimant was able to return to work with sedentary duty restrictions. There were jobs available for her within the open labor market, and the claimant was placed on temporary total disability. During the hearing, the Board granted Ben’s motion to exclude late-produced job search documentation from evidentiary consideration.
Perry Merlo (Harrisburg, PA) was successfully granted a termination petition in a workers’ compensation matter in Pennsylvania. The claimant was struck by a motor vehicle in a hit-and-run while performing his job as a trash collector. He sustained injuries to his lower back, neck, shoulders, and leg. We filed a termination petition on behalf of our client, presenting an expert medical witness, along with surveillance evidence showing the claimant performing rigorous physical activity, despite his claims of being unable to do so. The workers’ compensation judge agreed, granting our petition.
Michele Punturi (Philadelphia, PA) was successfully granted a termination petition in a workers’ compensation matter in Bristol, Pennsylvania. We filed a termination petition involving an employee with a significant pre-existing back injury. We presented evidence, including medical records and expert medical opinions, highlighting that the pre-existing history limited the nature of the accepted injury by a Stipulation of Fact. Our expert witness, a Board Certified Orthopedic Surgeon who examined the claimant on two separate occasions, emphasized that the claimant would make a full recovery based on a comprehensive physical examination, review of medial records revealing no post-traumatic findings, and a significant improvement in the claimant’s capabilities requiring no further treatment or restrictions. The court granted our petition, resulting in a substantial recoupment of payments of both indemnity and medical benefits.
*Results do not guarantee a similar result.
Defense Digest, Vol. 32, No. 1, March 2026, is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1. © 2026 Marshall Dennehey. All Rights Reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints, contact MEDeSatnick@mdwcg.com.