MSSSV
Mineola, NY 11501
Locations
MSSSV
Partner
Key Contacts
Owners, Principals & Senior Executives
Maurizio Savoiardo's Bio
Maurizio Savoiardo graduated from the State University of New York at Albany obtaining his B.A. in History in 1990. Maurizio graduated from Touro Law School with Cum Laude Honors in 1993. While attending Touro he served as a teaching assistant for 1st year students Federal Civil Procedure classes; was a finalist in the John S. Bainbridge Moot Court Competition and was the Editor in Chief of Touro’s Moot Court Board. Maurizio is admitted to the bar of New York State and the United States District Courts for the Eastern and Southern Districts of New York.
Maurizio became of counsel to MSSSV upon the dissolution of a prominent New York City defense firm where he practiced for fifteen years, the last seven as a partner. Maurizio is an experienced litigator including trials, appeals, mediations and arbitrations in both the Federal and State Courts in New York. His practice areas of expertise are tort defense, employment law and commercial litigation.
Maurizio’s tort defense practice includes construction accident, premises, automobile/trucker and products liability cases and his commercial litigation practice includes RICO, fraud, Truth in Lending and consumer complaints.
Maurizio has also served as defense counsel to private and public entities, including Fortune 500 Companies, in the defense of employment law matters throughout the State and Federal Courts. These include claims under Title VII, FMLA, ADEA, ADA, COBRA, constitutional torts and claims filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, New York State Division of Human Rights and New York City Commission on Human Rights. Additionally, he has significant experience drafting and litigating employment contracts, restrictive covenants, severance agreements and advising clients on Human Resources policies and procedures.
Specifically Maurizio has achieved the following victories:
Benstock v. Westbury Jeep: plaintiffs whose employment was terminated filed suit alleging wrongful termination and asserted claims for age discrimination and retaliation under the ADEA and New York Human Rights Law in the Federal District Court, Eastern District of New York. At trial, Maurizio demonstrated that the plaintiffs were discharged for poor job performance and obtained a defense verdict.
Chun v BMW North America: plaintiff filed suit asserting claims sounding in discrimination and deceptive business practices. Plaintiff sought monetary damages and a permanent injunction enjoining and invalidating BMW’s warranty and maintenance programs nationwide. Plaintiff asserted claims alleging national origin discrimination, deceptive business practices, RICO violations, fraud, breach of contract and violation of multiple New York Insurance Law provisions relating to the sale of warranties. The case was dismissed in its entirety on a motion for summary judgment and affirmed by the Appellate Division, First Department.
Washington v The Bank of New York: plaintiff who was denied a promotion filed suit in Federal Court alleging claims for racial and age discrimination and retaliation. The case was dismissed on a motion for summary judgment.
Ryan v Kassay: plaintiff, a 36 year old homemaker, who was five months pregnant tripped and fell while descending the front steps to her apartment owned by the defendant. Plaintiff’s injuries included a spiral fracture of the distal tibial shaft of the left leg resulting in bowing and shortening of the leg. Plaintiff remained hospitalized for four months until she gave birth. At trial, after cross examination of the plaintiff, the Court directed a defendant’s verdict holding that plaintiff’s own conduct in failing to use the available handrail and looking where she was walking was the proximate cause of her accident. The trial Court dismissal was affirmed by the Appellate Division, Second Department.
Malcolm v Clinton: plaintiff filed suit in the Supreme Court, Bronx County arising from a rear end collision. Plaintiff’s injuries included several herniated discs with impingement of the spinal cord. Maurizio successfully argued that the plaintiff’s injuries were pre-existing and not casually related to the accident. The jury returned a defense verdict, finding that the plaintiff failed to satisfy the serious injury threshold.
Michael A. Miranda's Bio
Michael Miranda attended Colgate University, graduating in 1983. He graduated from The New York Law School in 1986. He was Articles Editor of The New York Law School Journal for Comparative and International Law. His article, “An Analysis of the Tort Exception of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act,” was published at 7 N.Y.L.S.J. INT’L COMP L. 281(1985).
He was admitted to practice in New Jersey in 1986 and in New York in 1987, as well as the relevant Federal courts for these jurisdictions.
Mike’s broad-based experience mirrors that of the firm he founded in 1998. He has extensively litigated insurance coverage disputes; municipal liability and employment discrimination cases. He also regularly advises clients in how to avoid litigation, as explained below.
EMPLOYMENT COUNSELING
Mike also leads the employment practices counseling group. He serves as outside counsel to a number of private companies to deal with their everyday employment issues. He also has helped companies set up HR departments and establish appropriate protocol. He has given numerous seminars to clients to ensure compliance with the Federal and State wage and hour laws; sexual harassment seminars to employees and management; and as well as overall anti-discrimination training. His goal is to avoid litigation in giving these seminars and to educate the business and municipal community.
EMPLOYMENT / MUNICIPAL LITIGATION / TRIALS
He also has developed a specialty in defending wage, overtime, uniform, and spread of hours claims pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law.
Mike has often defended private and public employers in disputes ranging from sexual harassment to racial discrimination. In particular, he has achieved the following victories:
•Tara v. Village of Briarcliff Manor: plaintiffs gained substantial press notoriety by alleging that the Village of Briarcliff Manor was anti-Irish in opposing their application for a Gaelic facility. Mike obtained summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiffs had not sustained any constitutional injury. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York agreed, and dismissed the entire complaint before one deposition was taken or one document exchanged.
•Puglisi v. Tuckahoe: plaintiff asserted that the Village was selectively enforcing its building code in retaliation for his renting to African-Americans. The District Court, by Judge Motley, disagreed, and dismissed the complaint before trial. Mike not only obtained a complete victory, he convinced Judge Motley that the case was utterly frivolous, and he succeeded in obtaining over $30,000 in attorneys fees from plaintiff. Mike retained both the dismissal and attorneys fees award on appeal in the Second Circuit.
•Griffin v. Liberty: plaintiff was the President of the Sullivan County Chamber of Commerce, and he claimed that various police officers falsely arrested him. Mike obtained a verdict for the defense.
•Kovalsky v. Haverstraw: Mike obtained a defense verdict for the Village of Haverstraw and its police officers, who were charged with breaking the arm of a prisoner during an arrest. Mike used a doctor to demonstrate that the injury suffered by the plaintiff could not have been sustained in connection with the arrest.
•Shim v. Village of Lynbrook: Mike obtained a defense verdict in a racial discrimination/false arrest case. Plaintiffs had asserted that they were arrested solely because they are black and that, in reality, at the time of the arrest, they were simply returning important belongings to plaintiff’s house. The jury deliberated less than an hour in reaching a verdict for the Village and the officers on qualified immunity grounds.
•Ricciutti v. The City of New York and Henry Lopez: case involved serious charges of fabrication of police records and police misconduct. Mike and co-counsel obtained federal court defense verdicts for all defendants.
•Summit and Schechter v. Village of Pomona: After a two week trial, a Rockland County jury rejected a developer’s claims that he had been stymied in his development of a large subdivision. The developer claimed, in a hard-fought 10 year battle, that the Village of Pomona had repeatedly and illegally asked for money in lieu of the donation of parkland. The developer thus sought damages for a substantive due process violation under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The case was modeled on the famous Magee v. Orangetown $5.3 million verdictother portions of the subdivision, and ultimately sold the portion at issue.
•Bartels v. Village of Lloyd Harbor: After a grueling three-week trial, a Federal jury found for the Village of Lloyd Harbor; its police department and a number of its public officials in Bartels v. Lloyd Harbor et al; 08 cv 12546. Plaintiff claimed that he had been retaliated against because he constantly exercised his first Amendment rights in the Village. This included speaking out at Village Board meetings; erecting a 4×8 sign protesting the Mayor’s policies; and taking photographs of dangerous conditions in the Village. Based on his protected First Amendment activities, plaintiff asserted he was arrested; forced to take down his sign; and often threatened and intimidated by the Village police force. We were able to persuade the jury that the Village had reasons to restrict his speech, namely to maintain order at meetings and the safety of its roads as plaintiff was causing concerns for motorists.
•49 WB v. Village of Haverstraw: A unanimous Second Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a developer’s attempt to create section 1983 liability in an admittedly failed condemnation process. The plaintiff-developer relied upon a scathing State court appellate decision, which had found no rational public purpose for the municipality’s condemnation, and thus invalidated the entire condemnation. The Federal court, however, explained that it applied a much more rigorous standard, i.e. egregious conduct. As such, the Village’s good faith during the condemnation process was relevant and led the Circuit to reject plaintiff’s claims of a substantive due process violation.
INSURANCE COVERAGE LITIGATION
As to insurance coverage, his coverage experience ranges from common habitational and general liability defenses (such as late notice, lead paint, classification, and anti-subrogation issues) to environmental defenses. Mike has been to the New York State Court of Appeals three (3) times, prevailing each time in major victories for the insurance industry. See U.S. Underwriters v. Val-Blue (preventing wily plaintiffs’ attorneys from securing coverage by cloaking assault cases in the garb of negligence claims); Mount Vernon v. Creative Housing (same); American Home v. National Casualty (preserving the rights of excess insurers to disclaim on late notice grounds without showing prejudice).
He has also won cases involving late notice provided by a broker (Shaw Temple v. Mount Vernon); notice by a claimant (Ugandan Mission v. U.S. Underwriters); and the insurer’s right to choose counsel (Silbowitz v. Empire).
Mike has also authored articles for the Defense Research Institute and the New York Law Journal. He serves as a member of the Employment and Municipal Law Committees of DRI, the Municipal Law Committees of the New York State Bar Association and DRI.
He also chaired the State Bar Insurance Coverage Seminar from 2006-2009, involving topics ranging from construction insurance disputes to professional liability coverage questions.
Mike has spoken at the Practicing Law Institute’s Police Liability Panel twice; the National Business Institute’s Panels several times; and at New York State Bar Association seminars on Insurance Coverage, Municipal Liability, and Police Misconduct.
He and his wife Ondine are the proud parents of two boys, Daniel and Max.
Neil L. Sambursky's Bio
Neil Sambursky is a partner at MSSSV where his defense practice includes product liability, construction accident, automobile/trucker liability and premises liability cases.
Neil serves as national counsel in product liability cases across the country and in New York and New Jersey and has successfully defended manufacturers of all manner of products ranging from fire fighter gear and fall protection equipment, to industrial equipment and vehicles and products for disabled persons, to bicycle and gym equipment manufacturers. Neil has been admitted pro hac vice in numerous states throughout the country.
Neil is also a well-established insurance coverage litigator, who is frequently called upon to render coverage opinions for claims under general and professional liability policies throughout the country. Neil has also litigated environmental coverage disputes throughout the country and represents insurance companies in declaratory judgment actions on a wide range of coverage issues in various states.
Below is list of just some of decisions Neil has obtained:
•Waldeman Szpyrka v. Mentor Development Corp., (Supreme Richmond 2012)(Obtained partial summary judgment defeating Labor Law 240(1), 200 and portions of 241(6). In January 2013, defense verdict on remaining 241(6) claims and pass-through of fee claims to third-party defendant.
•Daniel Simone v. Liebherr Cranes, Inc. et al. (Supreme Ct, Kings County, NY, October 2010) (Construction Accident) (Summary judgment granted in a leg amputation case.)
•Hanson v. Turner Construction, et al. 70 A.D. 3d 641 (2d Dept. 2010) (Labor Law/Insurance Coverage) (Summary judgment defeating Labor Law case against a General Contractor and dismissal of third-party action against insurer client by a putative additional insured.)
•Fernandez v. Central Mine Equipment Company, 670 F. Supp 2d 178 (2009) (Product Liability) (District Court grants Daubert motion and summary judgment dismissing complaint against product manufacturer in an amputation case.)
Halliday v. Stevens, et al., 55 A.D. 3d 790 (2d Dept. 2008) (Product Liability) (Appellate Division affirms summary judgment dismissing product liability action against manufacturer of firefighter gear.)
•Baughn v. Pride Mobility Products, et al., 221 Fed.Appx. 14 (2d Cir. 2007) (Product Liability) (Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirms summary judgment in favor of electric scooter manufacturer in wrongful death action.)
•Griffin v. 19-20 Industry Associates, et al., 37 A.D.3d 412 (2d Dept. 2007) (Premises Liability) (Appellate Division affirms summary judgment dismissing slip and fall claim arising from an alleged malfunction of a sprinkler system.)
•Hutzler v. State of New York, 282 A.D.2d 503, 722 N.Y.S.2d 772 (2d Dept. 2001) (Labor Law) (Appellate division affirmed summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s complaint based upon New York’s Labor §§ 240(1), 241(6) and 200.)
•Moore v. Nayer, et al., 321 N.J. Super 419 (App Div. 1999) (Insurance Coverage) (New Jersey Appellate Division affirms dismissal of Zurich “bobtail” trucker’s policy and refuses to hold that the policy violated New Jersey’s compulsory motor vehicle laws.)
•Tasayco v. Konica Corporation, 267 A.D.2d 467, 699 N.Y.S.2d 467 (2d Dept. 1999) (Product Liability/Toxic Tort) (Appellate division reversed trial court and dismissed toxic tort case arising out of exposure to Formaldehyde in the workplace.)
•Essex Chemical Corp v. Hartford, et al., 993 F. Supp. 241 (D.NJ 1998) (Insurance Coverage) (Reversal of Magistrate Judge’s decision disqualifying joint defense group based upon implied attorney-client privilege and appearance of impropriety doctrines.)
•Employers Insurance of Wausau v. The Duplan Corp, et al. 1999 WL 777976 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) (Insurance Coverage) (Summary judgment that the sudden and accidental pollution exclusion barred coverage for clean-up claims in New York and the Virgin Islands.)
Presentations and Speeches
•“Trying The Environmental Coverage Case” (Mealey’s 1998)
•“Commercial Lines Insurance Coverage With Advanced Issues” (New York State Bar Assoc. 2004)
•“2005 Update and Overview of Premises Liability” (New York State Bar Assoc. 2005)
•“Commercial Lines: Coverage for the Construction Defect Claim” (New York State Bar Assoc. 2006)
•“2007 Insurance Coverage Update: Focus on First Party Coverage Issues. (New York State Bar Assoc. 2007)
•“Can the Commercial General Liability Policy Survive? Recent Developments Affecting Coverage for Bodily Injury Claims Under the CGL Policy” (New York State Bar Assoc. 2008)
•“Additional Insured Coverage: Hot Topics & Critical Issues for 2009” (New York State Bar Assoc. 2009)
•“Practical Skills – Basic Tort and Insurance Law Practice” (New York State Bar Assoc. 2010)
•“Law School For Insurance Professional” (New York State Bar Assoc. 2012)
Ondine Slone's Bio
Ondine Slone graduated from the University of Michigan in 1986, obtaining her B.A. in both English and Philosophy. She graduated from New York’s Benjamin Cardozo School of Law in 1989, where she served on Moot Court first as a member and then as an Editor.
Ondine is an experienced litigator, having worked at some of New York’s best insurance defense firms. She had developed a speciality in litigating the defense of municipalities on cases involving: police liability, employment discrimination, conversion of property, notices of claim, prior written notice and general torts. At MSSSV, she has had great success on numerous motions for summary judgment dismissing claims against municipalities such as: Village of Sands Point, Village of Great Neck, Village of Great Neck Plaza, Village of Manorhaven, Village of Flower Hill, Village of Lake Grove, Village of Lynbrook, Village of Mamaroneck, Village of Pelham, Village of Ryebrook, Town of Mamaroneck, Town of New Castle, Town of North Castle. She has also developed a speciality in the defense of school districts in the metropolitan area, including Mineola, East Meadow, Deer Park. She has successfully defended schools on claims for assaults resulting from lack of supervision, accidents involving assumption of risk, as well as claims involving construction litigation under New York’s Labor Law.
Ondine also has represented insurance companies in declaratory judgment actions. She is well versed on issues involving interpretation of policy exclusions, late notice, and disclaimer letters. In addition, she has represented insurance carriers on workers compensation claims, and has conducted hearings and trials on the entitlement to coverage under the workers compensation law.
Ondine has argued before the Appellate Division on numerous occasions and has prevailed in the following published decisions:
•Topal v. Village of Pelham, 304 A.D.2d 821, 758 N.Y.S.2d 676 (2d Dep’t 2003) [summary judgment granted to Village on claim by plaintiff that Village was negligent in maintaining its trees when a tree branch fell on his car, severely injuring him].
•Kaufman v. Village of Mamaroneck, 286 A.D.2d 666, 729 N.Y.S.2d 778 (2d Dep’t 2001) [plaintiff’s failure to timely file notice of claim and to commence Article 78 proceeding was fatal to his claim].
•Whiteman v. Temimah, 255 A.D.2d 378, 679 N.Y.S.2d 708 (2d Dep’t 1998) [insured did not have standing to appeal from the decision granting General Accident summary judgment and a declaration that it did not have a duty to defend and indemnify pursuant to the employee exclusion in the policy, when the insured did not submit opposition to the motion below].
•Ziajka v. Pace Plumbing Corp., 254 A.D.2d 480, 679 N.Y.S.2d 631 (2d Dep’t 1998) [plaintiff failed to establish a claim under Labor Law 240(1), 241(6) or 200 since plaintiff could not establish which contractor owned and controlled the plank which caused his accident].
•Scopelliti v. Town of New Castle, 210 A.D.2d 308, 620 N.Y.S.2d 405 (2d Dep’t 1994) [plaintiff elected his remedy to proceed with his claim for age-discrimination by filing a complaint with N.Y.S. Division of Human Rights and thus, could not commence an action in Supreme Court; plaintiff also failed to serve a notice of claim precluding the commencement of his action].
Ondine also has tried several cases to verdict and has prevailed in the defense of personal injury, property damage and insurance coverage disputes actions in various venues:
•Catherine Hart v. Town of North Castle, Supreme Court, Westchester County, J. Spolzino, November 21, 2001 verdict [jury found no negligence on part of defendant driver in rear end collision].
•Bass Oil v. Adam’s Steel Fabricators, Supreme Court, Kings County, J. Garry, December 8, 1992 verdict [jury found no breach of contract or negligence on part of defendant in property damage action].
Richard S. Sklarin's Bio
Richard S. Sklarin graduated Summa Cum Laude and Phi Beta Kappa from the State University of New York at Albany in 1988 and received his J.D. degree from St. John’s University School of Law in 1991. He is admitted to practice before the New York courts, as well as the Southern, Eastern and Northern Districts of New York, the Second Circuit of Appeals and Pennsylvania.
Mr. Sklarin has successfully tried several cases to verdict over the years in both federal and state Courts, as well as recording well in excess of two dozen reported Appellate Division decisions.
Over the years, Mr. Sklarin has been a frequent CLE lecturer for the New York State Bar Association in many of his practice areas as well as providing numerous in house presentations for insurance claims professional on various topics of New York law.
Aside from his law practice, Mr. Sklarin has been President of The Glen at Lewisboro HOA, Inc. for many years and serves on the Lewisboro Democratic Committee and Library Board of Trustees.
Mr. Sklarin resides in Goldens Bridge, New York with his wife and two children.
Steven Verveniotis's Bio
Steven Verveniotis graduated from New York University in 1982 and obtained his J.D. degree from New York Law School in 1986. He was admitted to practice before New York’s State Courts as well as the Eastern and Southern Districts of the United States District Court in 1986, and he was admitted to practice before the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in 1996.
Steven practices in the areas of insurance coverage litigation and professional liability, representing numerous insurers and a variety of professionals (including attorneys, agents, brokers, accountants and others) before the state and federal courts of New York. He has lectured at several New York State Bar and other seminars on insurance coverage issues and professional liability litigation.
Victories in the area of insurance coverage litigation include:
•Netherlands Insurance Company v US Underwriters Ins Co., 14 Civ 3568 (NSR) (JSM), Judge Roman – in December 2015 – upheld the disclaimer of coverage under an exclusion for injuries to employees of a contractor applicable to all insureds under the policy issued by US Underwriters.
•Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co. v US Underwriters Ins. Co., Sup NY 161856/2014, Justice Reed – in November 2015 – dismissed, on res judicata and collateral estoppel grounds, an attempt by Nationwide to collect on a $952,000 judgment against the named insured of US Underwriters on a construction accident claim at a work site involving contractors insured by each of the two insurers.
•Vandanyan v United National Specialty Ins. Co., 12 Civ 4329 (FB) (JO), Judge Block – in October 2015 – dismissed a lawsuit filed by a plaintiff seeking to recover the balance in excess of $750,000 from the insurer of a property owner after a default judgment and assignment of rights to pursue the insurer in the insurer’s exposure was voided by the partial payment, general release and discontinuance of the underlying lawsuit with a satisfaction of the judgment.
•Tower v Einhorn, the Appellate Division Second Department – in September 2015 – denied Tower the ability to enforce a denial of coverage that was challenged by plaintiffs and co-defendants from the underlying bodily injury action in that Tower had not proven the applicability of its disclaimer grounds by admissible evidence notwithstanding the default in the coverage case by Tower’s insured.
•East Ramapo Central School District v New York Schools Insurance Reciprocal, Sup Nassau 600963/2013, Justice Bucaria – in June 2015 – the recovery of an insured school district from its insurer for defense costs as to an underlying lawsuit, limited to $187,500 plus interest, rejecting proofs of legal payments in excess of $2 million.
•Mt. Hawley Ins. Co. v Penn-Star Ins Co., Sup NY 161321/2014, Justice Kern – in May 2015 – dismissed by operation of res judicata and collateral estoppel, a lawsuit by Mt. Hawley trying to collect approximately $663,000 from Penn-Star by challenging the disclaimer and prior adjudication upholding the denial of coverage as to Penn Star’s insured.
•Menser’s v Harleysville et al., Superior Court NJ, J. McMaster – in April 2015 – sustained disclaimer premised upon property damage exclusions as to claims grounded upon improper work performed by insured contractor.
•Chappaqua v Philadelphia Ins. Co., Sup Nassau 8717/2012, Justice Brown – in October 2014 – ruled that claims against a school district an accident on exterior stairs of a school building where an workshop met afterschool were not covered under the workshop’s insurance policy in that the claims pertained to the school’s maintenance of its premises, not the conduct of the workshop.
US •Underwriters v 14-33/35 Astoria Boulevard, EDNY 10 Civ 1595 (ARR)(JMA), Judge Ross – in April 2014 – rule din favor of the insurance company in rescinding a policy of insurance based upon misrepresentations on the application as to the contractors and other insurance for a construction project.
•Mercedes v Langsam, Sup. Bronx 18043/2007, Justice Salman – in April 2014 – granted summary judgment upholding disclaimer of coverage under exclusion for injuries to an employee of the insured.
•Lo- Bro v Rare Earth, Sup. Queens 8162/2012, Justice Sampson – in January 2014 – granted summary judgment upholding disclaimer by operation of exclusion for injuries to employees and contractors.
•Cromer v Rosenzweig, Sup. Ulster 2850-2012, Justice Gilpatrick – in December 2013 – granted summary judgment upholding disclaimer of coverage under exclusion for injuries to an employee of the insured.
U.S. •Underwriters Insurance Co v. Allstate Insurance Company, EDNY 10-cv-02353-WFK-JMA, Judge William F. Kuntz, II – in July 2013 – upheld denial of coverage based upon late notice and policy exclusion.
•National FireIns Co. v Gushue, Sup NY 110127/2011, Justice Coin – in July 2013 – ruled that Diamond Stat Insurance Company’s disclaimer for late notice was proven by evidence of years of complaints by claimant as to manganese fumes that ultimately were claimed to have caused Parkinson’s disease.
•United Nat. Ins. Co. v. 515 Ocean Ave., LLC, 2012 WL 1506053 (C.A.2 (N.Y.) 2012) Disclaimer for late notice by insured upheld where insurer proved insured’s awareness and unreasonableness in delay.
•Spentrev Realty Corp. v. United Nat. Specialty Ins. Co., 90 A.D.3d 636, 933 N.Y.S.2d 725 (2d Dep’t 2011) Disclaimer for late notice by claimant upheld where claimant failed to prove sufficient excuse for delay.
•Abraham Natural Foods Corp. v. Mount Vernon Fire Ins. Co. 84 A.D.3d 1281, 924 N.Y.S.2d 171 (2d Dep’t 2011) Insurer prevailed on disclaimer by proving that insured had become aware of the loss/accident in the underlying action prior to the date that the subject policy was issued.
•Chelsea Village Associates v. U.S. Underwriters Ins. Co., 82 A.D.3d 617, 919 N.Y.S.2d 163 (1st Dep’t 2011). Retracting one of several bases for disclaimer in a second letter does not invalidate the other grounds for disclaimer, which were proper and proven by admissible evidence.
United National Ins. Co., v 1854 Monroe Avenue HDFC, 2007 Civ. 10934 (KTD) (S.D.N.Y. 2010). Trial before Judge Duffy on timeliness of insurer’s investigation and disclaimer resulted in judgment upholding disclaimer.
US Underwriters Ins. Co. v Landau, 2010 WL 173301 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 19, 2010 and June 8, 2010) Court upheld disclaimer based upon late notice and exclusion for claims arising from work of independent contractors.
US Underwriters Ins. Co., v Calandra, 2010 WL 1049295 (E.D.N.Y.) Court upheld disclaimer of coverage based upon late notice where insured property owner knew of accident on property.
Colon v US Liability Ins. Co, 2009 WL 2413646 (E.D.N.Y.) Court upheld disclaimer of coverage based upon late notice and exclusion for bodily injury to contractors and their employees.
Nichillo v. U.S. Liability Ins. Group, 2009 WL 275670 (EDNY)Court upheld disclaimer of coverage based upon late notice to insurer after service on insured by way of secretary of state.
Alcon Builders Group, Inc. v. U.S. Underwriters Ins. Co., 20 Misc.3d 1115(A), 867 N.Y.S.2d 15 (Sup. Ct. NY Co. 2008) Coverage defeated by the exclusion for bodily injury to contractors and their employees.
U.S. Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Falcon et al. 2007 WL 1040028 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) Trial before Judge Haight resulted in judgment for the insurance company upholding disclaimers on the separate notice obligations of insureds under a general liability policy and separate owners and contractors protective liability policy.
Atlantic General Contracting v. U.S. Liability Insurance Group, 24 A.D.3d 480, 806 N.Y.S.2d 225 (2d Dep’t 2006) New York law applies to coverage litigation concerning a New York accident even though the insured was from New Jersey and policy was delivered in New Jersey.
U.S. Liability Ins. Co. v. Mountain Valley Ins. Co., 371 F.Supp.2d 554 (S.D.N.Y. 2005). Policy of insurance issued as excess above primary policy issued to vehicle lessee was above policy of vehicle lessor.
Ins. Corp. of NY v U.S. Underwriters Ins. Co., 11 A.D.3d 235, 782 N.Y.S.2d 432 (1st Dep’t 2004). Certificate of insurance is not sufficient to raise issue of fact as to purported status of additional insured.
NYCHA v U.S. Underwriters Ins. Co., 7 A.D.3d 393, 776 N.Y.S.2d 468 (1st Dep’t 2004). Court upheld policy limitation of coverage for particular work at particular job site.
Webster v. Mount Vernon Fire Insurance Company, 368 F.3d 209 (2d Cir. 2004). Notice to insurer by husband does not satisfy the separate notice obligation of the wife.
U.S. Liability Ins. Co. v. Winchester Fine Arts Services, Inc., 337 F.Supp.2d 435 (S.D.N.Y. 2004). Court upheld excess insurer’s disclaimer for late notice in case where claim was known to be serious and above primary’s limits from inception of lawsuit.
U.S. Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Affordable Housing, Foundation Inc., 88 Fed. Appx. 441, 2004 WL 287151 (2nd Cir. 2004) affirming 256 F. Supp.2d 176 (SDNY 2003). Trial Court found and Court of Appeals affirmed application of clear and unambiguous independent contractor exclusion.
Nationwide Insurance Co. v. Empire Ins. Co., 294 A.D.2d 546, 742 N.Y.S.2d 387 (2d Dep’t 2002). Additional insured has a separate obligation to provide notice to insurance company.
U.S. Liability Ins. Co. v. 204 W.78th St. Housing Corp., No. 01 Civ. 1033, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 210 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 7, 2002). Disclaimer upheld on lack of timely notice to insurer
Other victories, on a variety of claims, including professional liability claims, include:
Andrew U-Shin Kim v Ken Park, Sup NY 650770/2012, Justice Rakower – in October 2014 – dismissed a professional model’s claims against his business manager in that the documentary evidence as to the contract and payment records proved that the claims of mismanagement and wrongdoing to have been unfounded.
Davis v. Oyster Bay-East Norwich School District, 2012 WL 954080 (C.A.2 (N.Y.)). Retaliation claims dismissed as barred by prior proceedings and unfounded based upon the evidence.
Estate of Calli v. Forest View Center for Rehabilitation and Nursing, Inc., 91 A.D.3d 898, 937 N.Y.S.2d 606 (2d Dep’t 2012) Medical Technician company entitled to summary judgment showing that death was not proximately caused by lack of scan or unavailability of technician.
180 E. 88th St. Apartment Corp. v. Law Office of Robert Jay Gumenick, P.C., 84 A.D.3d 582, 923 N.Y.S.2d 474, 2011 (1st Dep’t 2011) In Legal Malpractice case, cross-claims and counterclaims by law firm against client board dismissed in that action by the board was undertaken in good faith and within its capacity as representative of the cooperative corporation and, in any event, such claims by the Law Firm may only be asserted against a culpable client by way of an affirmative defense, as a mitigating factor in the attorney’s negligence.
Dixon v. Village of Spring Valley, 50 A.D.3d 943, 856 N.Y.S.2d 243 (2d Dep’t 2008) Action against Village and police department dismissed on finding that decedent’s agent did not justifiably rely on defendants’ medical assistance as required to impose liability on defendants for response to 911 calls.
Davis v. Oyster Bay-East Norwich School District, 2006 WL 657038 (E.D.N.Y.) affirmed 2007 WL 926865 (2d Cir. 2007). Discrimination claims against school district and administrators dismissed as unfounded.
Gonzalo v Joline Estates Homeowners Assoc., 29 A.D.3d 631, 815 N.Y.S.2d 181 (2d Dep’t 2006) Summary judgment for defendant in personal injury action affirmed by Appellate Division where plaintiff’s testimony and expert’s opinion were insufficient to prove a defective condition or proximate causation.
39 College v Transpac, 27 A.D.3d 454, 810 N.Y.S.2d 520 (2d Dep’t 2006) Leave to amend pleading allowed in case concerning claims concerning lien on real property premised on allegedly improper mortgage.
Melnitzky v. Owen, 19 A.D.3d 201, 796 N.Y.S.2d 612 (1st Dep’t 2005). Legal malpractice and Judiciary Law claims dismissed based upon documentary evidence showing appropriate conduct by attorney.
Lo v Gong Park Realty Corp., 16 A.D.3d 553, 792 N.Y.S.2d 145 (2d Dep’t 2005). Default judgment vacated by Appellate Division where service was on secretary of state and defendant was able to show lack of receipt of summons and complaint because defendant had moved from address filed with secretary of state.
Crown Fire Supply Co., Inc. v. Cronin, 306 A.D.2d 430,761 N.Y.S.2d 495 (2d Dep’t 2003). Defamation case against Fire Chief/Fire Department dismissed on privilege/immunity grounds.
DiBlasio v. Chesterton et al, 302 A.D. 2d 486, 755 N.Y.S. 251 (2d Dep’t 2003). Claims by school employee against school for false imprisonment dismissed.
Friedman v Clarkstown Central School District , 01 Civ. 10646 (SHS), USDC, SDNY, Trial 2002 affirmed 75 Fed. Appx. 815, 2003 WL 22134539 (2nd Cir. (N.Y.)), 181 Ed. Law Rep. 418 (2nd Cir. 2003). On trial for injunctive relief, the District Court upheld the School District’s denial of request for exemption from immunization. The Second Circuit affirmed on facts and law.
Rachimi v. Robinson et al, Index No. 6033868/97. Trial before the Supreme Court, NY County (Justice Jane Solomon) in 2002. Defense verdict in legal malpractice action stemming from commercial litigation.
Dweck v Mann, 283 A.D.2d 292, 727 N.Y.S.2d 58 (1st Dep’t 2001).
Malpractice claims dismissed on showing of reasonable strategy and lack of damages.
Haggerty v Burns, 282 A.D.2d 500, 728 N.Y.S.2d 374 (2d Dep’t 2001).
Sanctions obtained against plaintiff deemed “provident exercise of discretion.”
Wolkstein v. Morgenstern, 275 A.D.2d 635, 713 N.Y.S.2d 171 (1st Dep’t 2000). Emotional distress and psychological damages are not recoverable in legal malpractice.
Polovy v. Duncan, 269 A.D.2d 111, 702 N.Y.S.2d 61 (1st Dep’t 2000).
Director/President of school had no basis for malpractice claim against school’s attorney.
Cepeda v. Trolman & Glaser, P.C., 259 A.D.2d 355, 687 N.Y.S.2d 67 (1st Dep’t 1999). Malpractice claims dismissed upon showing of reasonable attorney judgment at trial.
Hamond v. Marks Shron & Co., 249 A.D.2d 364, 671 N.Y.S.2d 106 (2d Dep’t 1998). Malpractice case against accountant dismissed for lack of duty owed by accountant to limited partner.
Rodriguez v. Weprin, et al, 116 F.3d 62 (2d Cir. 1997). Plaintiff failed to prove claims of civil rights violations alleged against attorneys, judge, and clerks.
In re Mediators Inc., 105 F.3d 822 (2d Cir. 1997). Neither sole shareholder nor creditors of corporate debtor can sue attorneys for aiding and abetting sole shareholder to defraud corporation.
Haggerty v. Burns, 244 A.D.2d 458, 665 N.Y.S.2d 913 (2d Dep’t 1997). Claims of abuse of process and malicious prosecution against attorney dismissed.
Aglira v. Julien Schlesinger, et al., 214 A.D.2d 178, 631 N.Y.S.2d 816 (1st Dep’t 1995). Malpractice case against trial lawyer disproved by documentary evidence.