Results

Obtained summary judgment in the Supreme Court of Kings County on behalf of a security, protection and investigation company in a case involving claims for negligent premises security as a result of a shooting at a housing project. The plaintiff was a resident of the premises when he sustained multiple gunshot wounds by an unknown assailant on the outdoor grounds of the property. The security company was hired by the co-defendant property owner to provide uniformed and armed security guards.

Marshall Dennehey's attorneys were victorious in a health care matter in the trial courts and before the New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division. The plaintiff had a congenital heart condition, bicuspid aortic valve disease, which put him at a greater risk for endocarditis, an inflammation of the inner lining of the heart. We represented the plaintiff's cardiologist. The plaintiff had complained of certain symptoms that our client believed indicated a viral illness and the cardiologist sent him to an internist.

Successfully defended a professional ice hockey organization in a case of first impression. The claimant was invited to the organization's hockey camp as part of a professional team try-out. The claimant was known as an "enforcer" in professional hockey circles, which meant that he had the propensity to fight during games. During camp, the claimant injured and/or aggravated a pre-existing injury to his dominant hand during a drill, thus eliminating his ability to hit, check or fight.

Successfully defended a large Pennsylvania mushroom distribution company in a claim petition. The claimant slipped and fell at work and landed on her knee. Within a month she had meniscal repair surgery and, a few months later, total knee replacement surgery. Between surgeries, the claimant was discharged from employment for violation of the company absenteeism policy.

Obtained summary judgment in favor of a Pennsylvania school district and its administrators who terminated a high school teacher for blogging derogatory comments about her students.  The plaintiff argued that her blog entries were free speech protected by the First Amendment and that her termination was unlawful retaliation for exercising her First Amendment right to free speech.  The defense argued that her speech was disruptive, which was not protected by the First Amendment.  The judge agreed.

Successfully represented a Pennsylvania school district in a special education due process hearing. A high school student with Type 1 Diabetes, who was a member of the high school marching band, tried out to play bass drum in the percussion ensemble for the upcoming outdoor season. After several months of tryouts, the band director and percussion coordinator concluded the student lacked the technical skills to march with and play the instrument, and the student was not offered a position with the bass drum.

Obtained a defense verdict after a four-day jury trial in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. The plaintiff alleged that law enforcement officers used excessive force, in violation of the Fourth Amendment, when removing him from his vehicle following a high-speed pursuit. The plaintiff claimed significant injuries to his left shoulder which left him with permanent nerve damage, leaving his left arm paralyzed and without sensation. In court, the officers demonstrated the techniques they used to pull the plaintiff from the car and subdue and handcuff him.

The defense prevailed in an inverse condemnation proceeding in the Luzerne County, PA, Court of Common Pleas. The plaintiffs owned a large tract of land in a borough in the county and, several years ago, the borough placed an asphalt over a dirt road located on the plaintiffs' property, creating an improved road that was used by adjacent property owners to access their property. The plaintiffs filed an inverse condemnation claim pursuant to the Pennsylvania Eminent Domain Act alleging that the borough's actions amounted to a taking of their property without just compensation.

Won dismissal of a legal malpractice lawsuit based on an underlying civil rights and RICO case. The owner of a restaurant claimed that, after he gave a smaller discount than usual to an inspector for the Department of Agriculture, she retaliated by using her official powers to shut down the restaurant and drive it out of business. After that case was dismissed on summary judgment, the plaintiff and his corporation sued each of his lawyers for malpractice in the form of negligence and breach of contract.

Successfully defended a title/closing agent and his law firm in a South Florida real estate transaction after a week-long jury trial. The plaintiffs were private hard money lenders who contended that the title agent failed to advise them and failed to list as an exception on the title policy that a conditional certificate of reoccupancy was obtained due to zoning violations, rather than a full certificate of reoccupancy pursuant to the City's ordinances.