Steven B. Saal
Areas of Practice
Steven is an associate in the firm's Casualty Department, representing clients in the full spectrum of transportation litigation including automobile and trucking matters. Experienced in handling high-exposure litigation involving multi-million-dollar claims, his clients include large motor coach, municipal transportation, school transportation and commercial trucking companies throughout the state of New York and the boroughs of New York City.
Steven also handles premises liability cases for facility companies performing maintenance and operations activities at major local airports. He works closely with facility managers and terminal employees to analyze and defend slip-and-fall claims and other incidents. He additionally represents sports and recreational facilities, often working with engineers and experts in the field to assess responsibility for on-site injuries. He works with clients to ensure proper safety procedures and protocols are in place.
Before joining the firm in 2016, Steven represented individuals in New York State and New York City Administrative matters, New York Criminal matters, New Jersey Municipal Court matters, and New York State Article 78 proceedings all generally related to motor vehicle operation and related issues.
Successfully argued and obtained a full dismissal of an arbitration matter filed against our self-insured client. The plaintiff, an insurer, filed an arbitration matter claiming our client owed payment for unpaid medical bills. The plaintiff alleged that the injuries arose from a motor vehicle accident on December 20, 2017 and sought payment for medical treatments provided to the insured in the amount of $56,804.06. The insurer’s position was that the entire amount was owed, that our client had not responded to a request for intercompany reimbursement, and that our client’s insured driver had caused the accident. It was our client’s position that insurers insured was the sole, proximate cause of the accident as a matter of law, and, therefore, our client was not responsible for any amount of the unpaid medical bills. The arbitrator heard arguments, concluded that our argument was persuasive, and found in full favor of our client in determining our client was not liable for the accident.
Obtained summary judgment dismissing all claims against our client in a premises liability case in Supreme Court, Nassau County. The plaintiff brought a claim against a real estate investment and management company for injuries sustained due to an alleged slip-and-fall in a bus yard owned by our employee. The premises was leased to a transportation company that employed the plaintiff. The motion for summary judgment argued that our client, as an out-of-possession landlord, is only liable for injuries sustained due to a structural defect or specific statutory violation, neither of which were supported by the record. Plaintiff opposed our motion arguing that since the current property manager did not sign the lease amendment and was not managing the property at the time of the incident, he lacked personal knowledge and could not authenticate the lease. The Court rejected these arguments and plaintiff’s claims were dismissed in their entirety against our client.
Obtained summary judgment dismissing all claims against our clients in a motor vehicle matter in Supreme Court, Suffolk County. The plaintiff brought a claim against our clients, a bus company, our insured driver, and the school district for negligence related to a motor vehicle accident that occurred when the plaintiff was working as a bus monitor for our client. The school district had contracted with the bus company for transportation services. In our motion, we argued that the bus company, as plaintiff’s employer, was protected by the exclusive remedy provision of the Workers Compensation law, that our driver was protected as a “co-employee,” and school district could not be negligent for the actions of its independent contractor. The plaintiff sought to argue that she was an employee of the bus company’s parent company and was not precluded by the Workers Compensation Law. The Court rejected these arguments and confirmed that plaintiff, as an employee of the bus company who received Workers Compensation benefits, could not sustain negligence claims against her employer and dismissed all claims against our clients. The Court further reconfirmed a prior appellate ruling speaking to the corporate structure of the bus company, which could protect the company from further suits seeking to disregard the Workers Compensation Law.