A strong result reflecting effective advocacy by Laurine Rubin following a damages arbitration arising from a 2017 rear-end motor vehicle accident.
The plaintiff alleged significant injuries, most notably a traumatic brain injury and post-concussion syndrome, along with cervical and lumbar spine injuries, and underwent extensive treatment including occupational therapy, vestibular therapy, neuropsychological care, and injections. Despite these claims, all brain imaging, including multiple MRIs and CT scans, were normal, and the defense challenged both the severity and causation of the alleged injuries.
At the hearing, the defense presented medical evidence demonstrating normal neurological findings and no objective evidence of cognitive impairment, supported by independent examinations and radiological reviews finding no causal relationship between the accident and the claimed conditions. The defense also effectively cross-examined the plaintiff regarding her activities following the accident, including evidence that she proceeded to a scheduled appointment shortly after hospital discharge, undermining the claimed severity of her condition.
Following review of the submissions and testimony, the arbitrator awarded the plaintiff $30,000, a significant reduction relative to the claimed injuries and treatment.
This was a strong result, reflecting effective use of medical evidence and cross-examination to limit damages in a case involving extensive treatment and significant claimed injuries.
A strong result reflecting effective advocacy by David Tetlak following an underinsured motorist arbitration arising from a motor vehicle accident that occurred in 2023 in Lake Grove. The matter involved a policy with $1,250,000 in available coverage, subject to a $100,000 offset.
The claimant alleged significant spinal injuries following a rear-end collision and ultimately underwent a two-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Liability, threshold, causation, and damages were all disputed, and the claim was further complicated by a subsequent motor vehicle accident occurring before the surgery.
At the hearing, the defense challenged both the claimant’s credibility and the extent to which the claimed injuries were attributable to the subject accident. The arbitrator found the claimant’s account of the accident to be unclear and inconsistent, and apportioned 40% comparative negligence to the claimant. The arbitrator also scrutinized the medical and damages submissions, rejecting portions of the claimant’s proof as unreliable, including a future damages report that misstated the claimant’s work status.
Although the arbitrator found that the cervical condition satisfied the statutory threshold, the award was substantially reduced based on comparative negligence and the $100,000 setoff. The arbitrator fixed gross damages at $575,000, but after applying a 40% reduction and the offset, issued a net award of $245,000.
This was a strong result, reflecting effective use of credibility challenges and medical evidence to substantially limit our client’s exposure.
Congratulations to Jesse Squier following a small claims hearing in Queens Civil Court on February 26, 2026.
The matter involved a property damage claim arising from an alleged hit-and-run accident. The claimant sought $5,290.47, and the defense position was that the insured vehicle was not involved in the accident, supported by an affidavit of non-involvement and photographic and video evidence showing no damage to the insured vehicle.
Photographs taken shortly after the alleged incident showed no damage to the insured vehicle, and additional video evidence taken days later continued to show no damage, undermining the claimant’s theory of impact.
The court issued a decision in favor of the defendant, dismissing the claim in its entirety.
This result reflects Jesse’s strong use of documentary evidence.
A strong result reflecting effective advocacy by Richard Brown following a summary jury trial in Supreme Court, Kings County, before Hon. Caroline Piela Cohen.
The case arose from a 2018, two-vehicle accident and proceeded to trial on both liability and damages with parameters of $10,000 to $100,000. On the morning of trial, the insured became unavailable to testify, requiring the defense to proceed without key testimony. The plaintiff alleged significant injuries, including cervical and lumbar herniations requiring interventional treatment, carpal tunnel syndrome, and knee injuries, along with claims of lost earnings, and sought $300,000 in total damages.
After approximately 4.5 hours of deliberation, the jury apportioned liability 60% to the defendant and 40% to the plaintiff, but found that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury under Insurance Law § 5102(d). As a result, the plaintiff’s recovery is limited to the $10,000 low under the high-low agreement.
This was a strong result in a challenging case, reflecting effective trial strategy and disciplined advocacy to significantly limit exposure under difficult circumstances.
A strong result reflecting effective advocacy by David Tetla. following an uninsured motorist arbitration before the American Arbitration Association. The matter involved a $100,000 policy arising from an August 3, 2022 motor vehicle accident in Brooklyn.
The claimant alleged a wide range of injuries, most notably a traumatic brain injury with complaints of headaches, migraines, dizziness, imbalance, and seizure-like episodes requiring magnesium infusions, along with additional claims involving the cervical and lumbar spine, wrist, knee, and foot. Despite extensive medical submissions, including MRI imaging and neurological treatment, the defense challenged both causation and whether the alleged conditions satisfied the serious injury threshold.
At the hearing, the defense submitted extensive documentary evidence, including sworn testimony and medical records, as well as video evidence depicting the claimant engaging in vigorous physical activity, including weightlifting, undermining the claimed limitations.
In a detailed decision, the arbitrator found that the claimant failed to establish a serious injury under Insurance Law § 5102(d) under any applicable category. While acknowledging evidence of injury, including findings consistent with traumatic brain injury, the arbitrator concluded that the proof did not demonstrate the required degree, duration, or functional limitation necessary to meet the statutory threshold. The arbitrator further noted the limited duration of treatment, the claimant’s ability to return to work and complete nursing school, and the absence of evidence supporting permanent or consequential limitations. The claim was denied in its entirety.
This was a strong defense result, reflecting Dave’s effective use of medical evidence and objective proof to defeat broad injury claims.
Congratulations to Gerard Ferrara for securing an affirmance of summary judgment before the Appellate Division, First Department, in favor of our client, Maritza Deliz. The ruling, issued by a panel consisting of Hon. Peter H. Moulton, Hon. Ellen Gesmer, Hon. Andrea Masley, Hon. Bahaati Pitt-Burke Scarpulla, and Hon. Manuel J. Rosado, upheld the dismissal of all claims, cross-claims, and counterclaims asserted against Ms. Deliz.
This appeal stemmed from a fatal rear-end collision involving a garbage truck operated by defendant Stanley Davis and owned by Avid Waste Systems, Inc. The defense successfully demonstrated that Ms. Deliz, who was slowing to avoid exposed manhole covers, was struck from behind—a scenario that triggers a presumption of negligence on the part of the rear driver under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1129(a). The Court held that the defendants failed to offer a nonnegligent explanation and that Davis’s testimony admitting he did not see Ms. Deliz’s vehicle until impact was insufficient to rebut the presumption.
The First Department also rejected arguments by co-defendant Carlo Lizza & Sons Paving, Inc., finding no evidence that Ms. Deliz’s operation of her vehicle proximately caused the crash. The Court emphasized that drivers are expected to anticipate foreseeable traffic conditions, including slowing for road hazards, and reaffirmed that claims of a “sudden stop” do not absolve a rear driver of liability absent a credible alternative explanation.
This decision reinforces critical legal standards governing rear-end collisions and safe following distances, and further highlights the importance of thorough briefing and precise witness testimony in defending against speculative liability arguments. Congratulations to Gerard Ferrara on this impactful appellate victory.
Congratulations to Rich Brown for securing a highly favorable outcome in a summary jury trial on damages in Kings County before Hon. Judge Velasquez. Despite the plaintiffs’ closing request for $400,000 and $450,000 in damages respectively, the jury awarded just $20,000 to Elisha Glean and $25,000 to Doreen Glean. In Kings County, where juries routinely award significantly higher sums for surgical cases, this outcome reflects an exceptional result for our client.
Both plaintiffs alleged extensive orthopedic and spinal injuries, including arthroscopic knee surgeries, meniscal tears, herniated discs, radiculopathy, and ongoing disability claims supported by MRIs and surgical records. The defense successfully challenged the magnitude and impact of these claims, leading the jury to return a minimal award well below expectations.
This result underscores Rich’s skillful handling of complex damages cases and his ability to deliver strong outcomes even in plaintiff-friendly venues. Congratulations to Rich on a standout win.
Congratulations to Gerard Ferrara for securing a summary judgment dismissal in Nassau County Supreme Court before Hon. Gregg Roth. The plaintiff alleged significant spinal and shoulder injuries, claiming his injuries met multiple serious injury threshold categories under New York Insurance Law § 5102(d).
Gerard successfully argued that the plaintiff failed to establish a serious injury, leading the court to dismiss the case in its entirety. Key findings from the court’s decision included:
With these findings, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the defense, dismissing all claims. This victory highlights Gerard’s ability to eliminate high-exposure injury claims before trial through strategic motion practice and expert medical analysis.
