bg4

(516) 249-3450

MOTION DECISIONS

VERDICTSMOTION DECISIONS • APPELLATE DECISIONS

PETER ALLMAN V. MCO, ET.AL.,

INDEX NUMBER: 23427/05 (QUEENS COUNTY SUPREME COURT, J. SATTERFIELD)

ORDER DATE: JANUARY 29, 2008

The Plaintiff alleged that he slipped and fell in a pool of water on the restroom floor of a McDonald’s restaurant. CC&I filed a motion for summary judgment on behalf of McDonalds asserting that McDonalds could not be held liable as it did not have notice of the alleged defective condition and it did not create the alleged condition. The Court agreed with this position and dismissed the Plaintiff’s Complaint.

ANTONIO AEDO V. COX

INDEX NUMBER: 10924/03 (WESTCHESTER COUNTY SUPREME COURT, J. LA CAVA)

ORDER DATE: MAY 16, 2007

The Plaintiff claimed injuries arising from a car accident, that included herniations and an impaired gait. The Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment asserting that any injuries caused by the accident were minor in nature and did not rise to the level of a serious injury. It was further argued that any continuing limitations were either pre-existing or unrelated to the accident, and rather the result of an undiagnosed Parkinson’s disease-like condition. The Court accepted the defense position and granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendants.

BERRY V. SALLEY

INDEX NUMBER: 24249/03 (BRONX COUNTY SUPREME COURT, JUDGE FRIEDLANDER)

ORDER DATE: SEPTEMBER 25, 2006

The Plaintiff in this action was involved in a motor vehicle accident and alleged that she sustained torn menisci in both knees, for which she underwent bilateral knee replacement surgeries. The Plaintiff’s settlement demand was $850,000. CC&I’s managing attorney filed a motion for summary judgment asserting that the Plaintiff’s injuries were degenerative in nature and unrelated to the subject accident. The Court accepted this position and dismissed the Plaintiff’s action.

CHADDERTON V. GALIA

INDEX NUMBER: 10020/02 (NASSAU COUNTY SUPREME COURT, JUDGE PALMIERI)

ORDER DATE: MARCH 8, 2004

This claim involved a 14 year old girl, who was struck by CC&I’s client’s vehicle, while she was riding a bicycle. Due to the accident, the Plaintiff fractured her femur, thumb and nose, and underwent open reduction and internal fixation surgery. CC&I’s handling attorney moved to dismiss the Plaintiff’s claim, on the grounds that their client was not negligent, and that the Plaintiff’s actions were the sole cause of the accident. Before making the motion, CC&I secured the sworn testimony of a non-party witness who was favorable for it’s client, and was able to rely upon this testimony when making the motion. The Court agreed with CC&I, and issued an Order dismissing the infant Plaintiff’s claim.

CRESPO V. ELRAC

INDEX NUMBER 46438/02 (KINGS COUNTY SUPREME COURT, JUDGE TORRES)

ORDER DATE: JANUARY 24, 2006

Claim involved a two vehicle accident where the plaintiff contended that our client caused him to sustain a back injury that required him to submit to back surgery and left him permanently disabled as a painter.After the completion of discovery, CC&I’s handling attorney moved to dismiss the action based upon the existence of a back problem that occurred 10 years prior. Based upon the pleadings, the court granted CC&I’s motion even though the plaintiff had already submitted to surgery and had economic damages in excess of $250,000.00. Plaintiff’s settlement demand stood at $1,000,000.00.

CHEN V. EMREALP

INDEX NUMBER: 113982/04 (NEW YORK COUNTY SUPREME COURT, JUSTICE TINGLING)

ORDER DATE: OCTOBER 14, 2005

This claim involved a two car accident, in which the Plaintiff was the passenger in a vehicle involved in an accident with CC&I client’s vehicle. The operators of both vehicles alleged that the other car crossed over a double yellow lane into oncoming traffic. The Plaintiff claimed that as a result of the accident she lost a fetus and sustained serious internal injuries. The handling attorney at CC&I filed a motion to dismiss the Plaintiff’s claim on the grounds that it’s client was not liable for the subject accident, and that the only admissible evidence before the Court was that the other vehicle caused the accident. Based on CC&I’s evidentiary arguments, the Court granted the motion and dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim.

FLEMING V. FORTY, ET. AL.

9746 CV 2005 (UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, JUDGE COTE)

ORDER DATE: APRIL 4, 2007

The Plaintiff in this action claimed that she was seriously injured in a motor vehicle, and was unable to perform her usual work duties for more than six months after the accident. CC&I filed a motion for summary judgment on behalf of the Defendants on the grounds that the Plaintiff did not satisfy the serious injury threshold requirements of New York State’s Insurance Law. The Court accepted CC&I’s position, granted that branch of the Defendants’ motion seeking summary judgment and dismissed the Plaintiff’s bodily injury claim. The Defendants also moved to dismiss the Plaintiff’s claim for lost income, on the grounds that the claim was barred by New York State’s No-Fault laws. The Court also agreed with this portion of the Defendants’ motion, and dismissed the Plaintiff’s action for lost income.