REPRESENTATIVE APPELLATE CASES
The following is a sampling of representative appeals which have been successfully handled by the firm:
Certified Multi-Media Solutions, Inc. v. Preferred Contractors Ins. Co., 674 Fed.Appx. 45 (2d Cir. 2017)
Successfully argued that particular wording of action over endorsement is inapplicable and does not apply to limit coverage from $1,000,000 to $10,000.
Masigla v. United Services Automobile Assn, 58 Misc.3d 147(A) (App. Term 2018)
Successfully argued that provider was compelled to disclose discovery as to business formation in no-fault case involving Mallella-based defenses.
Healing Art Acupuncture, P.C. v. United Servs. Auto. Assn. 2014-02454KC (App. Term 2015)
Appellant withdraws appeal involving Mallela-based defenses after filing of Respondent’s Brief.
Charles Deng Acupuncture, P.C. v. United Servs. Auto. Assn, 58 Misc.3d 135(A) (App. Term 2015)
Motion to dismiss appeal involving Mallela-based defenses granted in favor of client. Appellant precluded from filing appeal from judgment.
New York Cent. Mut. Ins. Co. v. McGee, 87 AD3d 622 (2d Dep’t 2011)
Court dismissed medical provider’s counterclaim based on its claim that it was entitled to coverage under "medical payments" provision of policy and reversed severance of the action against 12 professional corporations which were fraudulently incorporated by the same physician.
Tangney v. Burke, 21 AD3d 367 (2d Dep’t (2005)
Court held that injuries sustained by plaintiff resulting from incident in which plaintiff was pushed by defendant in underlying case did not fall under the definition of an occurrence under general liability policy.
Hanover Ins. Co. v. Inter-Reco, Inc., 15 AD3d 443 (2d Dep’t 2005)
Court held that the doctrine of equitable estoppel did not apply where Hanover never denied coverage and merely sought defense and contribution costs in connection with the settlement of the underlying action.
Halmar Builders of New York v. Team Star Contr, 13 AD3d 581 (2d Dep’t 2004)
Court held that All City Insurance established entitlement to summary judgment based on cancellation of policy before loss date, despite certificate of insurance showing coverage.
Jacofsky v. Travelers Ins. Co., 5 AD3d 557 (2d Dep’t 2004)
Court held that insured’s son did not qualify as insured under Travelers umbrella policy where son was not named as an insured under an underlying primary policy.
South Nassau Communities Hosp. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 12 AD3d 357 (2d Dep’t 2004)
Court upheld denial of summary judgment, holding that issue of fact existed as to whether requests for no-fault payments constituted a resubmission of claims to which the rule of Insurance Law § 5106(a) requiring payment or denial of claims within 30 days of receipt would not apply.
New York and Presbyterian Hosp. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 12 AD3d 579 (2d Dep’t 2004)
Court reversed grant of summary judgment in favor of hospital, holding that issue of fact existed as to whether insurer partially exhausted the coverage limits of the policy by other “no-fault” payments and whether such payments were in compliance with 11 NYCRR 65.15(n).
Hospital for Joint Diseases v. Allstate Ins. Co., 5 AD3d 441 (2d Dep’t 2004)
Court upheld denial of summary judgment, noting that plaintiff-hospital neither filed suit nor submitted the dispute to arbitration, “opting instead to repeatedly resubmit the denied claims, apparently in the hope that eventually the defendant would fail to issue a denial within 30 days.”
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Laguerre, 305 AD2d 490 (2d Dept 2003)
Seminal case with regard to a no-fault policy. Court granted summary judgment upholding the denial of a no-fault claim even though it was untimely where insurer demonstrated that the collision was staged and deliberately caused to fraudulently obtain insurance benefits. The Court held that since the collision was an intentional act and therefore not covered under the policy, the defense could be asserted even though insurer failed to timely deny the claim.
St. Luke's Roosevelt Hosp. v. Allstate Insurance Co., 303 AD2d 743 (2d Dep’t 2003)
Reversing grant of summary judgment in favor of hospital-assignee based on evidence submitted by insurer which raised an issue of fact as to whether the incident was an intentional act.
Government Employees Ins. Co. v. Shaulskaya, 302 AD2d 522 (2d Dep’t 2003)
Seminal case with regard to an auto liability policy. Court held that since the collision was a deliberate occurrence perpetrated in furtherance of an insurance fraud scheme, the disclaimer was valid regardless of whether the intentional collision was motivated by fraud or malice since the incident did not fall within the scope of coverage.
Pavarini Const. Co., Inc. v. Continental Ins. Co., 304 AD2d 501 (1st Dept 2003)
Court upheld application of policy exclusions based on insured’s work product.
Daley v. Travelers Casualty and Surety Co., 301 AD2d 364 (1st Dep’t 2003)
Court rejected insured’s argument that notice of claim could be imputed to insurer on the basis of its knowledge of and eventual acceptance of plaintiff's no-fault claim.
Eveready Ins. Co. v. Shane Johnson, 299 AD2d 261 (1st Dep’t 2002)
Court held that Travelers issue timely disclaimer under circumstances.
St. Vincent's Hosp. & Medical Ctr. v. Allstate Ins., 294 AD2d 425 (2d Dep’t 2002)
Court upheld insurer’s denial of no-fault claim pursuant to No-Fault law requirements, holding that hospital failed to establish that policy limits of $50,000 were not exhausted by legitimate claims made prior to the delivery of the appellant's claim to the no-fault insurer.
Westchester Cty. Med. Ctr. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 271 AD2d 685 (2d Dep’t 2000)
Court reversed grant of summary judgment holding that issues of fact existed as to whether the surgical procedure was properly validated by the medical records and whether the correct billing code was used.
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Moshevev, 291 AD2d 401 (2d Dep’t 2002)
Seminal case holding that insureds were not entitled to be present at each other’s examinations under oath since the examinations were requested pursuant to an insurance policy and not as part of a legal action.
Galanis v. Travelers Property Cas., 277 AD2d 282 (2d Dep’t 2000)
Court held that daughter did not qualify as an insured under mother’s policy even though she lived in the same two-family house.
New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Paillant, 269 AD2d 451 (2d Dep’t 2000)
Court reversed stay of arbitration based on failure to join State Farm in action.
Pszeniczny v. Horn, 193 A.D.3d 1091 (2d Dep't 2021)
Court upheld order dismissing causes of action for fraud and negligent misrepresentation in commercial contract.
Heredia v. 1454 St. Nicholas Ave. Assoc., 125 AD3d 550 (2015)
Court reversed order which granted summary judgment, holding that rider to contract unanmbiguously required tenant to indemnify and hold harmless owner up to $1,000,000.
Bellini v. Gypsy Magic Ent., Inc., 112 AD3d 867 (2d Dep't 2013)
Court reversed order denying summary judgment to plaintiff, holding that wheel stop did not constitute inherently dangerous condition.
Falzon v. JP Morgan Chase & Co., 501 Fed.Appx. 92 (2d Cir. 2012)
Court upheld trial court's damage award.
Cerrato v. Rapistan Demag Corp. 84 AD3d 714 (2d Dep't 2011)
Court reversed trial court's order and held that defendant established its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that it did not design, fabricate, install, or retrofit the subject platform from which the plaintiff fell.
Barbaruolo v. Difede, 73 AD3d 957 (2d Dep't 2010)
Court reversed trial court's order and granted defendant's motion for summary judgment for violation of VTL 1126(a).
McFadden v. Lee, 62 AD3d 966 (2d Dep't 2009)
Court upheld order holding that defendant did not have authority to supervise or control plaintiff's work.
Huger v. Cushman & Wakefield, Inc., 58 AD3d 682 (2d Dep't 2009)
Court upheld order dismissing plaintiff's complaint based on plaintiff's failure to comply with compliance conference order.
Lanzetta v. Midori, 55 AD3d 376 (2d Dep't 2008)
Court upheld summary judgment in favor of defendant, rejecting claim of negligent supervision.
Woodhull v. Town of Riverhead, 46 AD3d 802 (2d Dep't 2007)
Court reversed trial court order and granted summary judgment in favor of Town, holding that building code enforcement officer's entry into plaintiff's property for purpose of posting a stop-work order, after violation of town code was observed, was not a “search” under Fourth Amendment.
Ehrler v. Cataffo, 42 AD3r 424 (2d Dep't 2007)
Court reversed part of order and granted summary judgment on plaintiff's cause of action based on constructive fraud under Debtor & Creditor Law.
Diaz v. Kanuteh, 38 AD3d 447 (2d Dep't 2007)
Court upheld order granting defendant's motion for summary judgment based on plaintiff's failure to establish "serious injury."
Pluhar v. Town of Southampton, 29 AD3d 975 (2d Dep't 2006)
Court upheld order granting Town's motion for summary judgment based on failure of plainitff to identify the cause of her fall.
Palmieri v. Thomas, 29 AD3d 658 (2d Dep't 2006)
Court upheld summary judgment in favor of defendant, holding that statements in newspaper article were either absolutely privileged as fair and true report of a judicial proceeding, or consisted of non-actionable opinion.
Local 295-295C, IUOE v. Phoenix Environmental Services Corp., 21 AD3d 901 (2d Dep't 2005)
Court upheld arbitration award in favor of defendant-Union.
Meekins v. Town of Riverhead, 20 AD3d 399 (2d Dep't 2005)
Court upheld Town's motion for summary judgment, holding that pedestrian failed to comply with town code provision requiring prior written notice of alleged sidewalk defect.
Glacy v. 1109 Manhattan Ave. Housing Development Fund Corp., 8 AD3d 227 (2d Dep't 2004)
Court reversed order and granted summary judgment in defendant's favor, holding that defendant had established, as a matter of law, that defendant did not create or have actual or constructive notice of the condition.
Adlerstein v. Adlerstein, 5 AD3d 616 (2d Dep't 2004)
Court modified trial court's order, in a divorce action, which had directed an immediate return of child from Canada, holding that child should be permitted to complete school year.
Brown v. Lawrence, 5 AD3d 343 (2d Dep't 2004)
After a jury verdict in favor of plaintiff, defendant moved, pursuant to CPLR 4401, to dismiss the complaint. Appellate court rejected plaintiff's argument on appeal and upheld order dismissing the complaint.
Braun v. Safdie, 2 AD3d 473 (2d Dep't 2003)
Court reversed order which had granted plaintiff's motion to restore the case to the trial calendar on the basis that plaintiff failed to establish a meritorious cause of action, a reasonable excuse for the delay in prosecution of the action, a lack of intent to abandon the action, and a lack of prejudice to defendants.
Odell v. Town of Riverhead, 305 AD2d 477 (2d Dep't 2003)
Court upheld Town's motion to dismiss on the basis that plaintiff failed to comply with Town's prior written notice provision.
Boyd v. Trent v. Town of Riverhead, 297 AD2d 301 (2d Dep't 2002)
Court reversed trial court order on the basis that Town should not have been precluded from apportioning liability with joint tortfeasor; and holding that plaintiff's inordinate delay in seeking to amend precluded amendment.
Beaumont-Strumer v. Buffalino, 295 AD2d 381 (2d Dep't 2002)
Court upheld order granting summary judgment in favor of defendant on the basis that defendant did not retain sufficient control over the leased premises to be held to have had constructive notice of the alleged condition
Molina v. Sercia, 290 AD2d 425 (2d Dep't 2002)
Court upheld order granting summary judgment in favor of defendant on the basis that defendant had neither a statutory nor a common-law duty to provide window guards in the subject apartment under the circumstances.
Asaro v. Gilpin, 289 AD2d 429 (2d Dep't 2002)
Court upheld order dismissing the complaint on the basis that plaintiff failed to comply with the defendants' demand for an examination pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50–h(5) before commencing the action.
Narducci v. Manhasset Bay Assoc., 96 NY2d 259 (Court of Appeals 2001)
Seminal case, holding that glass falling on plaintiff did not constitute a "falling object" case pursuant to Labor Law § 240(1) since the glass was not a material being hoisted or a load that required securing for the purposes of the undertaking at the time it fell.