Morris Duffy Alonso Faley & Pitcoff

In addition to our four recent defendant’s verdicts, Morris Duffy Alonso Faley & Pitcoff has now added a fifth trial victory in the last month. Kevin Faley and Charles Kerr, representing the owner River Tower, along with Scott Brody of The Brody Law Group representing a general contractor, recently secured a verdict against the third party defendant employer in Supreme Court, Kings County before Judge Wayne Saitta. The defendants were seeking common law indemnification against the third-party defendant employer under the “grave injury” stature, Workers Compensation Law Section 11. The plaintiff had settled out with all of the parties and the trial was only between the defendants and the third-party employer. The sole question for the jury was whether the plaintiff had sustained a “brain injury resulting in permanent and total disability preventing him from engaging in any employment?” We successfully established that the plaintiff had suffered a traumatic brain injury rendering him incapable of employment, thus satisfying the grave injury statute and triggering the 1(B) coverage for common law indemnity. Congratulations to all!

In addition to our four recent defendant’s verdicts, Morris Duffy Alonso Faley & Pitcoff has now added a fifth trial victory in the last month. Kevin Faley and Charles Kerr, representing the owner River Tower, along with Scott Brody of The Brody Law Group representing a general contractor, recently secured a verdict against the third party defendant employer in Supreme Court, Kings County before Judge Wayne Saitta. The defendants were seeking common law indemnification against the third-party defendant employer under the “grave injury” stature, Workers Compensation Law Section 11. The plaintiff had settled out with all of the parties and the trial was only between the defendants and the third-party employer. The sole question for the jury was whether the plaintiff had sustained a “brain injury resulting in permanent and total disability preventing him from engaging in any employment?” We successfully established that the plaintiff had suffered a traumatic brain injury rendering him incapable of employment, thus satisfying the grave injury statute and triggering the 1(B) coverage for common law indemnity. Congratulations to all!

We’re #hiring a new Associate in New York City Metropolitan Area. Apply today or share this post with your network.

We’re #hiring a new Associate in New York City Metropolitan Area. Apply today or share this post with your network.

MDAFP makes new law governing Lyft, Inc. and other TNC vehicles in two cases of first impression. Specifically, the Appellate Division Second Department has held that a vehicle “being used to carry a passenger for hire within New York City at the time of the accident” is being operated as a “for hire vehicle,” rather than as a “TNC vehicle.” Therefore, claimant(s) seeking SUM coverage under the TNC policy issued to Lyft, Inc. do not qualify as insured(s) in those circumstances. Specifically, in order for the vehicle to be insured for SUM coverage under the TNC policy, the accident must have occurred while the driver was operating a “Transportation Network Company vehicle” that is providing a “transportation network company prearranged service.” The policy provides that a “prearranged service” expressly “does not include” transportation provided through a “for hire” vehicle as defined in New York City Administrative Code § 19-502. NYC Administrative Code Section 19-502 (g) defines a “for-hire vehicle” as “a motor vehicle carrying passengers for hire in the city” of New York. These Decisions will have wide implications for all TNC carriers that are now entitled to a permanent stay of arbitration sought by drivers and passengers in for hire vehicles being operated within the City of New York.

MDAFP has obtained an incredible four consecutive defense verdicts in the span of just one week. In the first case, a plaintiff claimed to have slipped on snow and ice at a gas station, alleging a two level cervical discectomy with insertion of a plate and cage, a lumbar microdiscectomy, and an arthroscopic wrist surgery as a result. Representing the gas station owner, Jeoungson Kim, Esq., raised numerous inconsistencies with Plaintiff’s description of the accident and photographs of the claimed condition, as well as Plaintiff’s pre-existing injuries from motor vehicle accidents both prior and subsequent to this accident. Plaintiff sought over $5 million in total damages, but the jury returned a defense verdict instead. In the second case, a plaintiff claimed to have slipped on construction debris. Representing the general contractor involved, Richard Stiek, Esq., highlighted Plaintiff’s inconsistent explanations as to how he was injured, and further presented compelling expert medical evidence refuting Plaintiff’s treating doctor’s testimony. Plaintiff had asked for $450,000 or more at trial, but the jury returned another defense verdict. In the third case, a plaintiff alleged she had been rear-ended by a box truck after changing lanes. Michael Vicario, Esq. presented a strong defense of the truck driver, establishing through photos of the vehicle damage and skid marks on the roadway that Plaintiff had cut off the truck, leaving no opportunity to avoid the occurrence. Medical evidence was also elicited, demonstrating that Plaintiff had pre-existing degenerative conditions and did not suffer any orthopedic injury as a result of the accident. Plaintiff asked for nearly $500,000, but the jury returned a liability verdict in favor of the defense. In the fourth case, a plaintiff claimed that he had been injured when transporting glass as part of a construction installation, alleging a causally related spinal fusion surgery and traumatic brain injury. Representing the Third Party Defendant employer, John Boneta, Esq. argued that the injuries did not constitute a “grave injury” sufficient to create liability against the employer. He further highlighted Plaintiff’s inconsistent descriptions of the accident and the inefficacy of Plaintiff’s expert’s opinions. Plaintiff’s demand had been $9 million, but the jury returned yet another defense verdict. MDAFP proudly congratulations all four of our trial attorneys, along with all who contributed to achieving these amazing results.

MDAFP has obtained an incredible four consecutive defense verdicts in the span of just one week. In the first case, a plaintiff claimed to have slipped on snow and ice at a gas station, alleging a two level cervical discectomy with insertion of a plate and cage, a lumbar microdiscectomy, and an arthroscopic wrist surgery as a result. Representing the gas station owner, Jeoungson Kim, Esq., raised numerous inconsistencies with Plaintiff’s description of the accident and photographs of the claimed condition, as well as Plaintiff’s pre-existing injuries from motor vehicle accidents both prior and subsequent to this accident. Plaintiff sought over $5 million in total damages, but the jury returned a defense verdict instead. In the second case, a plaintiff claimed to have slipped on construction debris. Representing the general contractor involved, Richard Stiek, Esq., highlighted Plaintiff’s inconsistent explanations as to how he was injured, and further presented compelling expert medical evidence refuting Plaintiff’s treating doctor’s testimony. Plaintiff had asked for $450,000 or more at trial, but the jury returned another defense verdict. In the third case, a plaintiff alleged she had been rear-ended by a box truck after changing lanes. Michael Vicario, Esq. presented a strong defense of the truck driver, establishing through photos of the vehicle damage and skid marks on the roadway that Plaintiff had cut off the truck, leaving no opportunity to avoid the occurrence. Medical evidence was also elicited, demonstrating that Plaintiff had pre-existing degenerative conditions and did not suffer any orthopedic injury as a result of the accident. Plaintiff asked for nearly $500,000, but the jury returned a liability verdict in favor of the defense. In the fourth case, a plaintiff claimed that he had been injured when transporting glass as part of a construction installation, alleging a causally related spinal fusion surgery and traumatic brain injury. Representing the Third Party Defendant employer, John Boneta, Esq. argued that the injuries did not constitute a “grave injury” sufficient to create liability against the employer. He further highlighted Plaintiff’s inconsistent descriptions of the accident and the inefficacy of Plaintiff’s expert’s opinions. Plaintiff’s demand had been $9 million, but the jury returned yet another defense verdict. MDAFP proudly congratulations all four of our trial attorneys, along with all who contributed to achieving these amazing results.

MDAFP’s Robert Whitbeck recently obtained a reversal of a lower court denial of summary judgment before the Appellate Division, First Department. The Court found that our client was not liable for contribution or common law indemnification, and did not have a duty independent of our client’s contractual obligations. The decision was the culmination of a years-long, multi-party litigation, and results in complete dismissal of all claims against our client. Credit to appellate partner Iryna Krauchanka, Esq. as well.

MDAFP’s Kevin Faley was quoted by the New York Law Journal on a recent significant decision from the New York Appellate Division

MDAFP’s Andrea Alonso and Robert Whitbeck recently appeared in the New York Law Journal, discussing the important issue of Dram Shop liability, particularly related to intentional and even criminal acts.