New York Verdicts
NY • 2017-08-24
In the case of Caruso v. Bon Secours Charity Health System, Inc., Patrizia Caruso, a former employee of Good Samaritan Regional Medical Center, alleged that her termination was due to discrimination based on race, sex, national origin, and age, as well as retaliation for engaging in protected activities. Caruso, a 51-year-old Italian-born woman, had worked in the Dietary Department from 1986 until her termination in July 2013. She claimed to have faced inappropriate comments and unwanted advances from a co-worker, Charles Edwards. After a physical altercation between Caruso and Edwards, both were terminated for violating the hospital's workplace violence policy. Caruso filed a lawsuit under various federal and state laws, but the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, finding insufficient evidence of discrimination or retaliation. The court also excluded evidence from two of Caruso's expert witnesses due to late disclosure. Caruso appealed the decision, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the lower court's judgment, upholding the summary judgment and the exclusion of expert evidence.
NY • No Date
The case of "Polino v. Toro Construction Corp., et al." involves a legal dispute where the plaintiff, Anne Sullivan Polino, leased a vehicle from HVT, Inc. The lease agreement required Polino to obtain insurance coverage that would also protect HVT, Inc. from potential claims. Safeco Insurance Company of America issued an insurance policy to Polino's husband, Cosimo Polino, which extended coverage to Anne Sullivan Polino. After Polino was involved in a motor vehicle collision, Dennis and Nancy Herdendorf filed a personal injury lawsuit against both Polino and HVT, Inc. HVT, Inc. sought a declaratory judgment to confirm that Safeco was obligated to defend and indemnify it in the underlying action. The court's decision in this case addresses the responsibilities of insurance coverage and defense obligations in the context of a vehicle lease agreement.
NY • 2019-09-27
In the case of Fink v. Marc Realty LLC, et al., Michael Fink filed a lawsuit against Marc Realty LLC and other associated parties, alleging that he sustained injuries after falling from a ladder while attempting to access an HVAC unit on the roof of a building owned by the defendants. Fink sought damages under Labor Law § 240 (1) and common-law negligence. The Supreme Court granted Fink's motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) and denied in part the defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment. The defendants appealed the decision. However, the Appellate Division dismissed the appeal due to the defendants' failure to provide an adequate record, including the operative complaint, which was necessary for the appeal. ()
Sources:
law.justia.com
NY • 2018-12-18
The case of "Slawecki v. Halper, et al." involves a legal dispute between Dr. Slawek Slawecki and Dr. Jason Halper, both obstetricians/gynecologists. In May 2008, Slawecki began receiving prenatal care from Halper, who referred her to Dr. Hassan Wehbeh, a perinatologist, due to her high-risk pregnancy. Throughout the pregnancy, Wehbeh reported various conditions, including low-lying placenta and placenta previa. On December 18, 2008, Halper attempted an amniotomy, which led to significant hemorrhaging, necessitating an emergency cesarean section. Following the delivery, Slawecki underwent surgery to address bowel perforations. She filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against Halper and Wehbeh, alleging that the amniotomy was contraindicated given her medical history and that Halper performed it improperly, leading to the need for an emergency cesarean section. The Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, Second Department, addressed motions for summary judgment filed by Halper and Wehbeh. The court found that Halper failed to establish his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, as his experts did not adequately address the allegations that the amniotomy was contraindicated and improperly performed. Consequently, the court denied Halper's motion for summary judgment and reinstated the complaint against him.
