Congratulations to Gerard Ferrara for securing affirmance of summary judgment in favor of Carolyn and Andrew Meccia in the Appellate Division, Second Department.
The case arose from a motor vehicle accident at an intersection where the plaintiff was a passenger in a vehicle operated by defendant Hailey Goodall. The Goodall vehicle failed to stop at a posted stop sign and collided with a vehicle operated by Carolyn Meccia, which had the right of way.
The appellate court agreed that the Meccias established prima facie entitlement to summary judgment by showing that Goodall’s failure to yield was the sole proximate cause of the accident. Goodall admitted she never stopped or looked before entering the intersection, and Meccia testified she only saw the other vehicle one second before the collision and had no opportunity to avoid it.
The court held that the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact regarding Meccia’s conduct, and affirmed the lower court’s dismissal of all claims against the Meccias.
This decision reinforces the principle that a driver with the right of way who is faced with a sudden and unforeseeable hazard is not liable as a matter of law. Congratulations to Gerard on this well-earned appellate win.
Salama v. Piccirillo, et al., 2024 NY Slip Op 00093 (App. Div. 2d Dep’t Jan. 10, 2024)
Congratulations to Gerard Ferrara for successfully affirming the dismissal of the amended complaint against defendant, Tana T. Piccirillo. This decision underscores the importance of demonstrating sole proximate cause in vehicle collision cases and highlights the firm’s effective appellate advocacy. The case was heard in the Appellate Division, Second Department, before a panel including Hon. Betsy Barros, Hon. Francesca E. Connolly, Hon. Robert J. Miller, and Hon. Paul Wooten.
This case arose from a collision on November 10, 2018, in which the plaintiff, Fahd Salama, was a passenger in a vehicle operated by Randa Soryal. Soryal’s vehicle, while attempting to turn right from a left-turn-only center lane, collided with a vehicle operated by Piccirillo. The plaintiff alleged negligence against both drivers.
The Supreme Court, Suffolk County, had granted summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint against Piccirillo, finding that her actions did not constitute proximate cause to the accident. The appellate court affirmed this decision, agreeing that Soryal’s unsafe lane change and failure to see Piccirillo’s vehicle were the sole proximate causes of the collision. The court relied on evidence, including a certified police accident report, which noted Soryal’s admission that she “did not see” Piccirillo’s vehicle.
This decision reinforces the principle that a driver with the right-of-way is entitled to expect compliance with traffic laws and is not comparatively negligent when reacting to another driver’s failure to yield. The success in affirming summary judgment is a testament to Gerard’s meticulous preparation and effective legal strategy.
Frankel v. Jaroslawicz, et al., 2024 NY Slip Op 01533 (App. Div. 2d Dep’t Mar. 20, 2024)
Congratulations to Gerard Ferrara for successfully modifying the Supreme Court's order, preserving the defendants’ affirmative defenses of comparative negligence. This decision highlights the nuanced application of comparative fault principles and the importance of maintaining viable defenses in personal injury cases. The case was heard in the Appellate Division, Second Department, before a panel including Hon. Colleen D. Duffy, Hon. Linda Christopher, Hon. William G. Ford, and Hon. Janice A. Taylor.
This case arose from an incident where the plaintiff, Ronen Frankel, was allegedly injured while walking along the shoulder of Branch Boulevard in Nassau County. He was struck by a vehicle owned by Achiezer Community Resource Center, Inc., and operated by Shalom Jaroslawicz. Frankel commenced this action to recover damages, asserting that the defendant driver’s negligent operation of the vehicle was the sole proximate cause of the accident.
The Supreme Court had granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff on the issue of liability and dismissed the defendants’ affirmative defenses of comparative negligence. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the finding of liability against the defendants but reversed the dismissal of the affirmative defenses. The appellate court noted that the deposition testimony provided divergent accounts of whether the accident occurred on the shoulder or in the travel lane, presenting a triable issue regarding the plaintiff’s comparative fault.
This outcome underscores the importance of preserving defenses in negligence cases where questions of fact remain unresolved. The success in modifying the lower court’s ruling reflects Gerard’s skilled advocacy and the firm’s commitment to achieving favorable results for their clients.
Guzman v. City of New York, et al., 2024 NY Slip Op 03456 (App. Div. 1st Dep’t June 25, 2024)
Congratulations to Gerard Ferrara for successfully affirming the dismissal of all claims against our client, Palabras De Rome Entertainment, Inc. This decision highlights the role of proximate cause in negligence cases. The case was heard in the Appellate Division, First Department, before a panel including Hon. Judith J. Gische, Hon. Jeffrey K. Oing, Hon. Barbara Jaffe, Hon. Peter H. Moulton, and Hon. John Higgitt.
This case arose from an incident in which a vehicle stolen from Palabras De Rome Entertainment, Inc. was involved in a high-speed chase with NYPD detectives. During the pursuit, the stolen vehicle struck another car, injuring the plaintiff, Eduardo Guzman. Guzman sought damages for his injuries, naming multiple defendants, including Palabras De Rome Entertainment, Inc.
The Supreme Court, New York County, had granted summary judgment dismissing all claims against Palabras De Rome Entertainment, Inc., holding that the accident was too remote from the theft of the vehicle to establish proximate cause. The appellate court unanimously affirmed this ruling, agreeing that the chain of events leading to the accident was too attenuated to impose liability on Palabras under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1210 or general negligence principles.
This decision reinforces the principle that liability cannot be imposed when the connection between the defendant’s actions and the alleged harm is too remote.
Chestnut v. United Methodist Church, et al., 2024 NY Slip Op 03726 (Decided July 10, 2024)
Congratulations to Keri for securing a critical partial victory before the Appellate Division, Second Department. Through a compelling presentation of the church’s governance and structure, Keri demonstrated that the denomination operates as a connectional system of independent entities rather than as a unified jural body. The panel, including Hon. Colleen D. Duffy, Hon. Paul Wooten, Hon. Deborah A. Dowling, and Hon. Lillian Wan, ruled that the United Methodist Church is not a legal entity capable of being sued, affirmed dismissal of the claims against the United Methodist Church, marking a critical development in this case.
This case arose under the Child Victims Act, with the plaintiff alleging that the United Methodist Church, along with various affiliated entities, bore responsibility for abuse allegedly committed decades ago by an employee of a local church. The plaintiff sought to establish that the United Methodist Church, as an overarching entity, dictated policies and maintained a supervisory role over its local congregations, creating potential liability.
Keri successfully argued that the United Methodist Church is not a legal entity capable of being sued, a nuanced issue requiring the court to analyze the church’s governance structure. The court agreed, concluding that the United Methodist Church is a connectional system comprising independent corporations and organizations, with no centralized legal identity, office, or capacity to employ staff or hold property. This decision resulted in the dismissal of all claims against the United Methodist Church, reaffirming that it could not be treated as a single, centralized entity.
Although the court denied the motion to dismiss claims against the General Council on Finance and Administration (GCFA), this partial victory underscores Keri’s ability to clarify complex legal relationships and eliminate inappropriate claims at an early stage and highlights the importance of understanding the intricacies of organizational governance in defending against broad claims.
Shestokovich v. Goodall, et al., 230 A.D.3d 521 (App. Div. 2d Dep’t Aug. 7, 2024)
Congratulations to Gerard Ferrara for securing a favorable outcome on behalf of the respondents, Carolyn and Andrew Meccia, in this case. This decision highlights the importance of demonstrating proximate cause and the absence of fault in negligence cases. The matter was heard before Hon. Valerie Brathwaite Nelson, Hon. Robert J. Miller, Hon. William G. Ford, and Hon. Helen Voutsinas of the Appellate Division, Second Department.
This case arose from a motor vehicle accident at the intersection of Beverly Avenue and Cartwright Boulevard in Nassau County. The plaintiff, Victoria Shestokovich, was a passenger in a vehicle operated by defendant Hailey R. Goodall, which collided with a vehicle operated by Carolyn Meccia. Goodall’s vehicle was governed by a stop sign, while Meccia’s vehicle had the right of way. The plaintiff alleged negligence against all parties involved, including Carolyn and Andrew Meccia.
The Meccias moved for summary judgment dismissing the claims against them, arguing that Goodall’s failure to stop at the intersection was the sole proximate cause of the accident. Gerard successfully demonstrated that Goodall admitted in her deposition that she failed to stop, slow down, or look before entering the intersection. Additionally, Carolyn Meccia testified that she only saw Goodall’s vehicle one second before impact, leaving no opportunity to avoid the collision. Despite the plaintiff’s objections to the admissibility of an uncertified police report, Gerard relied on deposition testimony to establish the Meccias’ lack of fault.
The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court’s decision, holding that the Meccias demonstrated, prima facie, that they were not at fault and that the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact regarding Carolyn Meccia’s actions. This ruling underscores the importance of deposition testimony in defending against claims and highlights Gerard’s effective advocacy in achieving this favorable outcome for our clients.
Orman v. Khedr, et al., 2024 NY Slip Op 03726 (Decided September 11, 2024)
Congratulations to Keri Wehrheim and Gerard Ferrara for securing an important ruling in this case, which reaffirms the principle that distinct claims stemming from unrelated accidents must be litigated independently unless substantial overlap in facts or legal issues exists. The decision, authored by Hon. Betsy Barros, Hon. Joseph J. Maltese, Hon. Paul Wooten, and Hon. Laurence L. Love of the Appellate Division, Second Department, upheld the trial court’s discretion in denying the plaintiffs’ motion to consolidate.
This case arose from two separate motor vehicle accidents involving the same plaintiff just two days apart in May 2019. The plaintiff sought to consolidate the actions for trial, arguing that overlapping injuries warranted a combined proceeding. However, the court found no common questions of law or fact between the two accidents, emphasizing that consolidation is inappropriate where the incidents are unrelated.
Keri and Gerard successfully demonstrated that the plaintiff failed to provide adequate evidence of overlapping injuries or any other justification for consolidation. As the court noted, without medical evidence or specific allegations of interconnected issues, consolidation would undermine judicial efficiency rather than promote it.
This ruling highlights the importance of a strong, evidence-based argument against improper consolidation, ensuring that cases are adjudicated on their merits without unnecessary procedural entanglement. Scahill Law Group's precise and effective advocacy was instrumental in achieving this outcome.
Cintron v. Carter, et al., 2024 NY Slip Op XXXX (App. Div. 2d Dep’t Sept. 11, 2024)
Congratulations to Keri Wehrheim for securing an important procedural victory before the Appellate Division, Second Department. This case reinforces the strategic use of CPLR 3216 to dismiss stale claims, ensuring that defendants are not prejudiced by a plaintiff’s failure to prosecute. The decision was rendered by Hon. Dillon, Hon. Brathwaite Nelson, Hon. Ford, and Hon. Ventura.
This case arose from a motor vehicle accident on October 19, 2013, where the plaintiff, a passenger in a vehicle operated by Jouvonda D. Weeks, alleged injuries following a collision with a vehicle driven by Tyreil Kawan Carter and owned by Bonnie J. Carter. The plaintiff commenced the action in 2016 but failed to advance the case meaningfully. After Weeks served a 90-day notice pursuant to CPLR 3216 in July 2021, the plaintiff failed to file a note of issue or otherwise respond within the required time frame. Weeks moved to dismiss, joined by the Carters.
The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the claims against Weeks, holding that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a potentially meritorious cause of action. Notably, the court emphasized the absence of medical evidence to substantiate a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d).
However, the court reversed the dismissal as to the Carters, noting that they had not served their own 90-day notice as required under CPLR 3216.
This decision underscores the importance of timely action in litigation and the strategic application of procedural tools to achieve favorable outcomes for clients. Keri’s diligent advocacy ensured a successful result for Weeks, limiting unnecessary litigation and protecting our client’s interests.
Patterson v. Nassau County Social Services Dept., et al., 2024 NY Slip Op 04777 (App. Div. 2d Dep’t Oct. 2, 2024)
Congratulations to Keri Wehrheim for successfully securing an important procedural win before the Appellate Division, Second Department. This decision reaffirms the rigorous standards of the relation-back doctrine and the necessity of timely notice for new defendants in Child Victims Act (CVA) cases. The ruling was rendered by Hon. Hector D. LaSalle, Hon. Angela G. Iannacci, Hon. William G. Ford, and Hon. Helen Voutsinas.
This case arose from allegations of sexual abuse in 1989 while the plaintiff was placed in a foster home by the Nassau County Social Services Department. The plaintiff, suing under the CVA, later sought to amend the complaint in 2023 to add SCO Family of Services (SCO), alleging that the organization had accredited the foster home where the abuse occurred. SCO was brought into the case as a third-party defendant by Nassau County but was not named as a defendant by the plaintiff until after the CVA’s revival period expired. The plaintiff argued that the relation-back doctrine allowed her to add SCO as a defendant after the statute of limitations expired.
The court affirmed the denial of the plaintiff’s motion to amend, holding that the plaintiff failed to meet the third prong of the relation-back doctrine. Specifically, the record lacked evidence that SCO had notice of the plaintiff’s CVA action against Nassau County before the statute of limitations expired. Without such notice, SCO could not reasonably anticipate being named as a defendant, and thus, the relation-back doctrine could not apply.
This victory demonstrates Keri’s precision in navigating procedural defenses, ensuring our client was shielded from untimely and prejudicial claims, and the decision highlights the importance of meeting each element of the relation-back doctrine.
St. Fort Colin v. Perry, et al., 2024 NY Slip Op 04777 (App. Div. 2d Dep’t Oct. 16, 2024)
Congratulations to Keri A. Wehrheim for achieving a significant victory for our client, Winston Perry, in the Appellate Division, Second Department. This decision underscores the importance of preserving triable issues in negligence cases where conflicting accounts and unresolved questions of fault remain. The case was heard before Hon. Betsy Barros, Hon. Joseph J. Maltese, Hon. Paul Wooten, and Hon. Deborah A. Dowling.
This case arose from a motor vehicle accident at the intersection of 231st Street and Linden Boulevard in Queens. The plaintiff, a passenger in the vehicle operated by defendant Vesta Alexandre, alleged negligence by both Alexandre and Perry, whose vehicle entered the intersection from a stop sign-controlled street. Alexandre moved for summary judgment, asserting that Perry was entirely at fault for the accident and seeking dismissal of all claims and cross-claims against her. The Supreme Court, Queens County, granted Alexandre’s motion in its entirety.
On appeal, Keri successfully argued that Alexandre failed to eliminate triable issues of fact regarding her own negligence. The appellate court agreed, finding conflicting testimony about the sequence of events leading to the collision. While Alexandre claimed that Perry entered the intersection and struck her vehicle, Perry testified that he was stationary, with only his front bumper extending past the crosswalk, and that Alexandre swerved into his vehicle. Alexandre also admitted she did not observe Perry’s vehicle before the collision, despite an unobstructed view of the intersection.
The Second Department reversed the portion of the lower court’s decision dismissing Perry’s cross-claims, allowing the case to proceed. This outcome ensures that key factual disputes about Alexandre’s role in the accident will be decided by a trier of fact.
This decision highlights Keri’s appellate prowess and Scahill Law Group’s commitment to safeguarding our clients’ right to full and fair adjudication of disputed claims.
Gibbs v. Van Arsdale, et al., 2024 NY Slip Op 06582 (App. Div. 2d Dep’t Dec. 24, 2024)
Congratulations to Keri Wehrheim and Gerard Ferrara for successfully affirming the dismissal of all claims against our client, Robert and Ann Elsasser, Inc., in the Appellate Division, Second Department. This decision reinforces the principle that compliance with local rules governing commercial vehicle operations can serve as a strong defense against negligence claims. The case was heard before Hon. Mark C. Dillon, Hon. Robert J. Miller, Hon. Deborah A. Dowling, and Hon. Helen Voutsinas.
This case arose from an accident in which the plaintiff, Mark Alan Gibbs, was struck by a vehicle operated by defendant Lance Harry Van Arsdale while attempting to cross the street. Van Arsdale filed a third-party complaint against Robert and Ann Elsasser, Inc., alleging that its delivery truck, parked near the accident site, was negligently positioned in violation of New York City traffic rules. Elsasser moved for summary judgment, arguing that its truck was lawfully double-parked under 34 RCNY 4-08(f)(1), which allows temporary double parking for commercial deliveries under specific conditions. The Supreme Court granted Elsasser’s motion, dismissing the third-party claims, and the appellate court upheld this decision.
Keri and Gerard successfully demonstrated that Elsasser’s delivery truck complied with all applicable regulations and was not negligently parked. The appellate court affirmed that Elsasser’s actions were consistent with permissible commercial delivery practices and that Van Arsdale failed to raise any triable issues of fact in opposition.
This ruling underscores the importance of understanding and adhering to local regulations as a defense against negligence claims, particularly in urban environments where commercial vehicle operations are heavily regulated. Keri and Gerard’s precise and effective advocacy was instrumental in securing this outcome.
