Defense Victories For Tom Craven:

Defense Victories For Tom Craven: Congratulations to Tom Craven for a defense verdict on November 6th in Kings County on damages in Cruz v. Lessard (19317/12). The case was tried in a Summary Jury format before Judge Kathy King with parameters of $30,000 to $275,000. Tom received another defense verdict on liability in Sachaleli v. Zdrazil (12866/12) on October 15th, in before Judge Velazquez in Kings County. A $500,000 policy was saved as damages claimed were extensive.

Thomas R. Craven Jr.

Tom has successfully tried numerous high exposure automobile accident cases. His experience encompasses all aspects of litigation defense including arbitration, taking and defending depositions, and conducting hearings as well as arguing at trial and before the New York Appellate Division. Admitted to practice in New York and Massachusetts, he handles cases in state and federal courts.

Read More about Thomas R. Craven Jr.

Congratulations on the appellate victory for  Andrea Ferrucci  in an important victory on appeal in Walker v. Whitney (2015 NY Slip Op 07532) decided on October 15, 2015 by the Appellate Division, First Department. Here, the plaintiff in Bronx County claimed injuries to the left shoulder, including an impingement syndrome and partial thickness tearing of the anterior labrum. The plaintiff underwent arthroscopic surgery for decompression and repair of the labral tear. This plaintiff also alleged disc herniations of the cervical spine at C4-C5 and C5-C6 and disc bulges of the lumbar spine at L4-L5. The plaintiff underwent nerve block injections and trigger point injections for the cervical and lumbar spine. The case was dismissed by the lower court on a serious injury, summary judgment motion.

On appeal, the Appellate Division sustained the dismissal noting, "The only admissible evidence is an affirmation from plaintiff's orthopedic surgeon, who last examined plaintiff shortly after the arthroscopic procedure. He indicated that following surgery, plaintiff had a "decreased range of motion in his left shoulder," but did not provide measurements of the actual ranges of motion or a normal value for comparison. He also did not provide evidentiary support for his conclusory statement that plaintiff's shoulder condition is related to the accident, nor did he address the opinions of defendants' experts that any shoulder injury was due to ongoing pathology and degenerative changes (see Paduani v. Rodriguez, 101 AD3d 470, 471 [1st Dept 2012]). Although the unaffirmed MRI report of plaintiff's radiologist, like that of defendant's expert radiologist, found "mild" hypertrophic changes of the AC joint, plaintiff's expert failed to address those findings and explain why they were not the cause of the injury (see Batista v. Porro, 110 AD3d 609 [1st Dept 2013]). We note too that the surgeon's statement did not address the conclusions by defendant's doctors that as of 2012, plaintiff had regained a full range of motion in his left shoulder, which is relevant to the claim of permanent injury. Here, plaintiff fails to meet the serious injury threshold" Walker v. Whitney, No. 15641, 2015 WL 5972104 (N.Y. App. Div. Oct. 15, 2015).

David J Tetlak

What does your team do?

We litigate and arbitrate no-fault, uninsured motorist and coverage matters on behalf of insurance companies with the various courts and arbitration forums in the State of New York. Additionally, we assist with the investigation and resolution of coverage questions and disputes by conducting Examinations Under Oath and legal research and providing written legal opinions, recommendations and proposed communications to insureds.

How does it operate?

We operate in a team-oriented environment whereby all members of the team are educated and knowledgeable in the areas of the law practiced and are well-versed in the individual matters handled herein. Additionally, all team members are keenly aware of the needs and desires of the individual insurance company clients, thereby allowing for quick, individualized responses and service.

How does your approach to managing the department benefit clients?

Our clients enjoy and benefit from accurate, expedited service. We are known to our clients as the “go-to” firm when immediate and same-day responses or action is required. Our team is available virtually 24/7 and has the ability and proven track-record to assist our clients when tight, or even non-existent, time frames are involved. We have also been able to develop successful strategies to the benefit of our clients, which were either not known or not recognized at the time a matter is assigned for defense and continued handling.

What does your team do?

Our job is to assess our files to determine the viability of summary judgment motions and any appeals that may be warranted. My team is tasked with reviewing each file, inclusive of depositions, medical records and Independent Medical Examinations (IMEs) to determine the feasibility of summary judgment liability and threshold motions. In addition to proactively reviewing the files, we also draft responses to adversary motions. My team is also responsible for reviewing Court Orders and evaluating them for the viability of an appeal. If an appeal is feasible, my team is tasked with drafting appeal opinion letters, and timely filing the Notices of Appeal with the Court. Meeting deadlines are crucial and we are responsible for timely review, filing and tracking all motions and appeals. We also provide trial and appeals assistance.

How does your team operate?

We review and provide assistance on all bodily injury claims. We evaluate all files post-Note of Issue and review every IME that comes in. I will assign work to the team if I am not handling it personally. We have numerous deadlines at one time, with significant time constraints due to the rules for summary judgment and appellate practice. Therefore, we have to operate at maximum efficiency at all times. We have a great team that gets it done.

How does your approach to managing the department benefit clients?

I implemented the procedures to make the department more proactive rather than reactive. We now automatically review and recommend motions for summary judgment motions, rather than waiting for claim representatives to request it as was the prior procedure when I started. My department utilizes the filing of the Note of Issue as an alert to trigger review. The Note of Issue, which starts the time frame during which to make Summary Judgment Motions, signifies to the Court that discovery is complete. Therefore, we can be confident in our reviews that the necessary discovery has been obtained, and the viability of a motion can be assessed. Our proactive approach has helped our office to nearly eliminate late motions for summary judgment. Additionally, it helps us to ensure our ability to provide our clients with the most efficient resolution of their claims. Since a Summary Judgment motion is considered a “trial on paper,” the granting of a Summary Judgment motion in favor of our client will extinguish the claims against our insured and as such, the matter will be resolved without the need for our client to endure a trial. When viable, a Summary Judgment motion, is one of the most cost-effective and expeditious manner in which to resolve a claim.

Frank Scahill received a great result for a defense verdict on the issue of liability before
Barrera v. Klinger,(Index No: 21504/10) following a trial before Judge Feinman in Nassau County.

As Managing Partner, Frank ensures the firm’s commitment to the Golden Rule – responsiveness to clients. And the result has been long-standing relationships – in some cases for decades – with many clients.

His philosophy is an outgrowth of his background. A child of Irish immigrants, he was raised with the values of hard work and education. His parents struggled to build a life in the US and as a first-generation American, Frank felt a responsibility to succeed and live up to his parents’ and the American dream. He grew up in Rockaway Beach and attended Fordham and St. John’s University. He is an active alumnus of St. John’s and each year the firm offers intern positions to law school students.

Within the firm, Frank fosters an environment where everyone feels like part of a family. He demands hard work and dedication to client service, but also encourages staff to work together and help each other. The importance of building strong relationships is evident in how the firm was formed and how it successfully grew from 2 attorneys to 35 attorneys and 65 staff. After law school, Frank was Law Clerk to the Honorable John A. Milano in New York City Civil Court. The judge became a mentor and life-long friend and many years later joined the firm as counsel. Frank was an associate to John Picciano before the 2 decided to become partners establishing the firm in 1991. Over the years, they have emphasized adding people who fit within the firm culture.

Read More about Frank Scahill

A good result achieved by Paul Duer for a defense verdict on the issue of liability in
Longi v. Kozlowsky (Index No: 300264/14) following a trial before Judge Esposito in Queens.

Congratulations to Tom Craven who received a defense verdict on September 10, 2015 in the case of

Pisarevsky v. Lukas

(Index No: 8681/13) on the issue of liability in Kings County Before Judge Sweeney. The case involved a motorcycle accident with serious injuries. We had $1.3 million in coverage. Plaintiff rejected high/low agreement. Great result Tom!!!

Who Wins, the Brother or the Husband?

A recent case in the Second Department had all the makings of a bar exam question. Husband and wife were married from 1995 to 2012, when the wife died. In 2008, the wife took out a life insurance policy naming the husband as beneficiary. In 2009, the husband filed for divorce. In 2012, the wife changed the beneficiary under the policy to her brother. In 2012, before the judgment of divorce was entered, the wife dies. Who gets the proceeds from the policy. Brother or husband? The lower court found for the husband and the brother appealed.
The husband wins. (See Reliastar Life Ins. Co. of New York v. Cristando, No. 2014-01064, 2015 WL 3478040 (N.Y. App. Div. June 3, 2015).

"The Supreme Court properly directed the plaintiff to pay the proceeds of the decedent's life insurance policy to Cristando rather than to Lozada because, by changing the primary beneficiary of her life insurance policy from Cristando to Lozada while the divorce action was still pending, the decedent violated the automatic orders (see Domestic Relations Law § 236[B][2]; see also Sykes v. Sykes, 35 Misc.3d 591, 595). Lozada's remaining contentions are either not properly before this Court or without merit. Accordingly, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from. "