Practice Areas

I’ve been a Preeminent Attorney in America for well over two decades since 1998, defending professionals, including attorneys, accountants, and other professionals and defending all other sorts of insureds. The most honored, most consulted, oldest and the number one attorney-rating service in the world ranked me with having the very highest skill and ethical rating awarded to attorneys. I’ve also been honored, among other things, to serve as the 2013 President of the seventy-seven (77) year-old Trial Lawyers Association of Brooklyn-Manhattan. I celebrated being nominated and sworn-in by The Honorable Jenny Rivera, JCA, the newest Judge in the Court of Appeals of the State of New York as the President.

We have successfully defended insureds under PLI, PII(E&O), D&O, EPLI, CGL, and other insurance liability policies over the last three decades. Our Firm has innovative great solutions creating tremendous win-wins based on being excellent, accomplished, and successful defense attorneys.

We have also successfully obtained millions in recoupments in numerous CGL cases based on immediately effectuating indemnifications. We began routinely successfully obtaining recoupments and effectuating tenders to subcontractor insurers over twenty-years ago before other firms started routinely doing it. With respect to CGL cases involving well-written contracts requiring the entity to purchase and maintain insurance for the benefit of your insureds as additional insureds, and with the requisite protections, including, among other protections, no-employee exclusions, and providing for contractual liability coverage or “insured contract coverage,” and requiring the tenant, subcontractor or other entities to contractually defend, hold-harmless and indemnify your clients for claims arising from their tenancy, occupancy and/or work, not limited to negligence, we agree with you to share the ultimate risk by foregoing any and all payment of attorneys’ fees, and obtain them solely though recoupment from the tenant, subcontractor or other entity. We do this by initially reviewing, at our expense, your insured’s contract (including subcontractors or vendor contracts), and the applicable policies for the no-employee exclusions, contractual liability converge or “insured contract coverage,” contractual hold-harmless, duty to defend and indemnify, and such other protections.  If they are present, we immediately notify you in writing of our willingness and agreement to literally share the risk with you by foregoing payment of any fees limiting ourselves to the fees recovered.  We have had success doing this and are such accomplished and experienced attorneys that we have yet to lose in over a decade with respect to such cases.

We effectively handle and defend by immediately applying over two decades of accomplishment, skill, talent and dedication working with the claim professionals to get immediate cost-effective results and success. Having obtained verdicts creates the favorable dynamic enabling immediate favorable resolutions.

In addition to the myriad D&O and professional liability insureds successfully defended, we have recently won a large and very dangerous personal injury case, Auriemma v. Biltmore Theatre, LLC, et. al., 82AD3 1, 917NYS2d130[1st Dept 2011], where two contractors and their respective insurers were required to defend up to the limits of their primary policies ($2,000,000.00), before the insured’s primary policy “kicked-in,” based on contractual hold-harmless, and insurance provisions contained in the respective contracts.  This case is repeatedly cited with respect to these principles of law.

We obtained a Decision denying summary judgment from The Honorable Judith J. Gische, JSC, on a complex DJ action paving the way to recoup indemnity paid and attorneys’ fees incurred totaling about one million dollars ($1,000,000.00) in Toal v. York Hunter v. Parkview, Index Nos. 112541/03, 109049/06.

The results we get also included taking jury defense verdicts in general liability cases, and taking appellate victories, both of which are published.  One of them was Bauerlein v. Salvation Army 74 AD3d 851, 905 NYS2d 215 [2nd Dept 2010] (summary judgment dismissing strict products liability against manufacturer, including defective design and manufacture, negligence and breach of warranty causes of action).  Another appellate victory was Sinkaus v. Regional Scaffolding, 71 AD3d 478, 898 NYS2d 107 [1st Dept 2010], wherein we eviscerated plaintiff’s Labor Law causes of action by, in large part, attacking the plaintiff’s proffered expert as based on the plaintiff’s speculative testimony three years after the accident without any evidentiary support.

Another jury in a general liability case in New York County returned a defense verdict after a two week trial involving a very sympathetic 63-year old woman with very serious injuries including two surgeries involving her shoulder from allegedly falling in our client’s lobby at 450 Park Avenue.

Another jury in a general liability case returned a defense verdict finding no liability against our clients at the very time hitting co-defendants with a jury verdict of $2.1 million in Joy Booth v. Sweet Construction, et. al., Supreme Court, New York County Index No.: 108653/06. The trial took eleven days.

On the eve of trial in the Bonaparte, Supreme Bronx County Index No. 3241/04 case, the subcontractor we impled paid $450,000 and paid eighty percent of the recoverable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred.

We also went to trial on the case of Leonti v. New York City Health & Hospital Corp., et. al., Supreme Court, Kings County Index No. 2972/05.  The Court by The Honorable Donald Scott Kurtz, JSC, conferenced the case because of our pending motion in limine.  During the Conference, based on the evidence developed, and arguments stated in the motion in limine, including the project being a Prime Contract (“Wicks Law”) Project, plaintiffs’ attorney, Mark J. Rayo, Esq., and the remaining defendants settled the case for $460,000, without any contribution from our clients. We, in effect, won a defense verdict, without the risk, and without the need for a trial and without incurring the fees and costs of same.

In York Hunter v. Inscorp, Supreme Court, New York County, Index Nos.: 113204/03, 590222/04, the subcontractor Gateway was compelled to pay full indemnity of $500,000.00, that is, 100% of the indemnity, without any contribution. Gateway and their insurer, Arch, finally agreed to pay an additional $60,000.00, in recoupment of the defense fees and costs paid by the insurer representing about 80% of the recoverable fees and expenses incurred.

  1. Trial Lawyers and Litigators:
  2. Trucking Companies Defense Practice:
  3. Workers’ Compensation for Trucking Companies
  4. Insurance Defense and Litigation:
  5. Financial Institutions Defense Practice (D&O, E&O, EPL, MPL):
  6. Pet Law And Animal Rights:

Comments are closed.