Partner Cheryl Fuchs and associate Alicia Sklan obtained pre-discovery summary judgment in a Kings County Labor Law case.  In Lazo v. Catholic Charities, et al, the plaintiff fell off of a scaffold located on the roof a building owned by one of the defendants.  Though our client installed pipe scaffolding on the rear of the building, a sidewalk bridge in front of the building, and roof protection on neighboring buildings, we moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that our client did not install any scaffolding on the roof of the building where plaintiff’s accident indisputably occurred.  Rather than wait for these facts to be established through discovery, we were proactive and obtained an affidavit from plaintiff’s employer confirming that the accident did not occur on equipment our client owned, installed, or had any duty to maintain.  As a result, we obtained a complete dismissal for our client.

For any questions about this case, feel free to contact .

Georgia handles a variety of general liability claims, including high-exposure labor law and construction accident personal injury claims.  Georgia also litigates premises liability and property damage claims.  Georgia is a cum laude graduate of New York University where she was a member of the Dean’s List.  At Fordham University School of Law, Georgia was a member of the Fordham Environmental Law Journal.

Steven’s practice focuses on insurance coverage and appellate work.  Steven provides coverage opinions on a variety of issues, defends and prosecutes declaratory judgment actions and litigates complex commercial litigation actions.  Steven graduated cum laude from College of the Holy Cross and was a member of the Dean’s List.  He also graduated cum laude from Brooklyn Law School.

New York, NY 

Mountainside, NJ 

Partner, Denise Fontana Ricci, obtained summary judgment in Deska v. Wildcat Wrestling Club, a personal injury lawsuit in which a spectator at a wrestling match allegedly fell due to water on a gym floor from melted snow.   The central issue in the case was whether the New Jersey Charitable Immunity Act precluded the plaintiff ’s claim as the Wildcat Wrestling Club fell under the Act’s protections and all negligence claims were barred.

In a creative attempt to escape this immunity, the plaintiff argued that the Club had been grossly negligent in holding the match on a night when it snowed – as gross negligence would overcome the statutory immunity.  In opposition, we argued that although the plaintiff asserted that the snowstorm on the night of the match was a nor’easter or blizzard, historical data dispelled this account.  We therefore argued that under the facts presented, there simply was no evidence to support a claim of gross negligence based upon a failure to cancel the match for mere snow.  The trial court agreed and granted our motion.

Mountainside, NJ 

Partner, Denise Fontana Ricci, was awarded summary judgment in the case of Puglisi v. AJD v. Burlington, a declaratory judgment action involving a general contractor’s attempt to obtain additional insured insurance coverage from a subcontractor.   In the underlying action, Puglisi v. AJD Construction, a mason died after falling backwards from a platform that served a hoist elevator used to bring personnel and supplies to the upper floors of the building that was being constructed.   The decedent’s estate alleged that the decedent fell while leaning on a horizontal girt support for a canopy over the platform.   Notwithstanding the fact that the decedent’s estate sued the scaffold and hoist company, a Burlington Insurance Company insured, the plaintiff ’s expert faulted only AJD, the general contractor, that had overall responsibility for safety on the jobsite.   No expert opined that the scaffold and hoist company’s design or initial installation of the platform or hoist was negligent.  In the absence of such evidence, the Court granted summary judgment to Burlington’s insured.

Notwithstanding this reality, AJD still sought additional insured coverage from Burlington on the basis that the scaffold and hoist company’s Burlington insurance policy included a blanket additional insured endorsement that provided additional insured coverage when the named insured was required to procure such coverage in a written contract but only in situations where the tender arose out of the insured’s work.  In this case, because there was no evidence to the contrary, the judge agreed that the tender did not arise out of the insured’s work.   The court therefore ruled in favor of Burlington and held that no coverage attached.