New York, NY 

New York, NY 

Counsel Cheryl Fuchs and associate Georgia Stagias were awarded summary judgment in a Queens County, Labor Law case.  In the case of Guaman v. Viewest Owners, LTD., the plaintiff alleged he was injured as he attempted to descend from a hanging scaffold onto a sidewalk bridge that our client, Everest Scaffolding, Inc., installed.  Plaintiff alleged that his accident was caused in part by the fact that a portion of the sidewalk bridge was approximately 4 feet or 5 feet away from the wall of the building.  We moved for summary judgment seeking to dismiss the Labor Law claims on the basis that Everest was not an “employer,” “owner” or “general contractor,” to which the Labor Law applied.  In addition, we argued that Everest did not supervise or control the plaintiff’s work.  The court agreed and dismissed the Labor Law claims as against Everest.  In addition, we moved to dismiss the common law negligence claims against Everest on the basis that the fact that the bridge was not built directly abutting the facade failed to present an issue of fact regarding Everest’s negligence because either OSHA, the New York City Building Code, nor the New York City Administrative Code require that sidewalk bridges be placed directly against the building’s facade.  The court also agreed with this argument and dismissed all common law negligence claims against our client.

New York, NY 

Counsel Cheryl Fuchs was awarded summary judgment in a Kings County, NY premises liability case.  In the case of Davis v. Linden Plaza, Preservation, LP, the plaintiff allegedly tripped and fell over “construction debris” in a parking lot on November 30, 2008.  We represented Everest Scaffolding, a contractor that erected a sidewalk bridge at the site in September 2008, and removed it in October 2008, a month prior to the plaintiff’s accident.  We took an aggressive approach, especially for Kings County, and moved for summary judgment pre-depositions.  In support of our motion, we submitted our client’s work records and an affidavit from our client confirming the dates of work and the fact that once Everest removed the bridge it took all of its materials with it.  Both plaintiff and the co-defendant property owner opposed our motion on the basis that it was premature without depositions.  They did not, however, present an affidavit or any other evidence that would indicate that the “construction debris” belonged to Everest.  As such, the court granted our motion and dismissed the case.

New York, NY 

New York, NY

On November 14, 2012, WCM Senior Partner Dennis M. Wade and Partner Michael Bono spoke before the International Underwriters Association (“IUA”) in London, England.  Their presentation was entitled Fine Art and Collectible Losses: Framing the Value Issues and focused on the factual and legal difficulties in determining the market value of unique objects.

New York, NY 

WCM, along with many international insurers and law firms, was pleased to act as a sponsor for the 2012 Wordings Specialists’ Gathering XX in London, England on November 9, 2012.  An annual event, now in its 20^th year, the Wordings Gathering brings together Underwriters, claims professionals and service providers from the Lloyd’s of London and London company markets to discuss differences in policy wordings — and hoist a pint or two in celebration.

Philadelphia, PA

Partner Bob Cosgrove and associate Remy Cahn were awarded summary judgment in a Philadelphia County, PA premises liability case. In the case of Moosudee v. City of Philadelphia, the plaintiff allegedly sustained injuries when she slipped or tripped down a flight of stairs while en route to the employee entrance at the Ritz Carlton in Philadelphia.  She sustained multiple injuries and was unable to return to work as the result of her fall.  She commenced a lawsuit against the City of Philadelphia, SEPTA, CCD and the Ritz alleging that their joint negligent maintenance of the public stairwell lead to her fall.

At the close of discovery, we moved for summary judgment based on the fact that there was no evidence that the Ritz owned, maintained or controlled the stairwell at issue. Judge Massiah Jackson agreed with our analysis and dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint, nothing that there was no evidence (despite the plaintiff’s protestations) that the Ritz had responsibility for the stairs.

New York, NY 

Philadelphia, PA 

In the case of Modesta Ciarlone, et al. v. 271, L.P. et al., Modesta Ciarlone was heading to the Planet Fitness gym in Malvern, PA when she slipped and fell on black ice.  As a result of her fall, she claimed she underwent three surgeries to her left hip – including a hip replacement.  In her lawsuit, Ciarlone named the property owner, the gym and our client, the snow and ice contractor.  The pre-trial demand on the case was $500,000.

WCM partner Bob Cosgrove and associate Remy Cahn tried the case before the Honorable William Mahon, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Chester County. After a four day trial and just before the jury got the case, the case settled for $250,000 or half of the plaintiff’s pre-trial bottom line demand.

New York, NY 

Associate Lora H. Gleicher won a jury trial in a Bronx County Civil Court matter.  In Mena v. 1944 Holding Ltd., et al., plaintiff allegedly tripped and fell as she was descending an interior staircase in a building that the defendant owned and managed. Plaintiff claimed that prior to her fall, she had made numerous complaints to the building superintendent about an allegedly defective stair, but that the superintendent never remedied the problem. At the time of the trial, the superintendent was no longer working for the building and was unable to be located. As such, the defendants were unable to produce a witness at trial.

At trial, plaintiff had difficulty telling the truth, testifying on direct that (1) she told the superintendent about the alleged defect six months prior to her accident; (2) she fell on the second step; (3) she sought medical attention, immediately; and, (4) she did not return to work following the accident. On cross-examination, we attacked plaintiff’s credibility and confronted her with her deposition testimony, wherein she stated: (1) she allegedly told the super about the alleged defect only several weeks before her accident – not six months; (2) she fell on the third step – not the second; (3) she sought medical attention 8 days after her accident; and,(4) she returned to work for approximately 5 days after her accident. Plaintiff’s credibility was further destroyed when she denied ever filing a claim for personal injuries, despite having filed a claim related to 9/11 clean.

Ultimately plaintiff’s credibility was shattered, and despite not having a defense witness, after a mere 25 minutes of deliberations, the jury returned with a defense verdict.