The plaintiff was named as a defendant in a debt collection action for failing to pay her attorney’s legal bills. Judgment was entered against her but never fully enforced. More than five years later, our client filed a Praecipe to Issue Writ of Revival and then mistakenly filed a Praecipe for Writ of Execution before the judgment was revived by the court.

Marshall Dennehey succeeded in having the Pennsylvania Superior Court reverse, as excessive, a $10 million wrongful death award. ​The jury had also awarded $10 million in survival damages, but that award was reversed in post-trial motions.

We obtained a per curiam affirmance in the Fourth District Court of Appeal in a suit against a campground/RV park. The suit alleged that the campground negligently maintained the campsite and failed to keep the electrical up to code, forcing an RV owner to abandon her RV at the site. The campground countersued for writ of distress to remove the unsightly vehicle from the campsite. The trial court entered judgment on the pleadings and declined to amend the complaint, finding an amendment would be futile.

​The homeowners claimed the homeowners association’s response to their request to mediate the dispute violated the applicable mediation statutes. They sued the association for declaratory and injunctive relief. The circuit court, sitting in its appellate capacity, had affirmed the final judgment in favor of the association and awarded it appellate attorney’s fees and costs.

We successfully obtained a defense verdict on behalf of a dentist in a dental malpractice action in Luzerne County. ​The plaintiff asserted causes of action for negligence and lack of informed consent. Regarding negligence, the plaintiff alleged the dentist used excessive force in extracting a lower third molar, thereby causing a fracture of the mandible and alleged permanent paresthesia. In response, the defense admitted that the mandible was fractured during the extraction, but offered expert testimony that the fracture was an extremely rare complication and was not caused by negligence.

Marshall Dennehey was successful in the New Jersey Appellate Division, which affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff’s complaint under New Jersey’s Charitable Immunity Act. The defendant operated a shelter for battered women, their dependent children and the homeless. The plaintiff and her child were residents at the shelter and beneficiaries of its charitable goals when the plaintiff slipped and fell on ice on the shelter’s property. She argued that she was not a beneficiary of the charity because she did administrative tasks and volunteered in the charity’s thrift store.

We obtained summary judgment in Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County. ​The plaintiff commenced an action seeking reimbursement of PIP benefits under the defendant-carrier's policy for anesthesia rendered to the claimant during a surgical procedure. After establishing that the claimant failed to appear at multiple, duly-scheduled independent medical examinations—a condition precedent to coverage—the complaint was dismissed.

Obtained a dismissal at trial in Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County. ​The plaintiff, an acupuncture facility, alleged wrongful denial of personal injury protection/no-fault benefits relating to acupuncture services rendered to its assignee, a claimant who sought benefits under the defendant-carrier’s policy. The trial judge granted dismissal of the complaint on the basis of the carrier’s defense, that payments were issued in accordance with the applicable fee schedule and, therefore, nothing further was owed to the plaintiff.

Marshall Dennehey successfully obtained summary judgment, dismissing all claims against our client in a marine construction New York Labor Law case in the Supreme Court in Rockland County. ​The case involved bodily injuries sustained to an employee of our client, a sub-subcontractor at the site of the new Mario Cuomo Bridge. The property owner, general contractor and the subcontractor each cross-claimed and/or third-partied our client into the case, all seeking contractual and common law indemnity and contribution pursuant to the terms and conditions of the various contracts.