Results

We successfully upheld an arbitrator’s ruling in a $13 million construction defect case, defeating claims that our client negligently recommended windows and doors for a coastal Florida home. The owners’ direct claims against the general contractor and our client, the window and door supplier and installer, were arbitrated. The owners claimed the window company misrepresented the fitness of the windows and doors for use in Florida’s coastal environment. We argued that the windows and doors were specified by the owner and architect and that our client performed proper due diligence by visiting the manufacturing facility and consulting with the manufacturer’s engineers with regard to the application. The arbitrator found no liability as to our client because there was no evidence it was negligent in its recommendation of the product.

We successfully achieved affirmance of the trial court’s decision to dismiss all claims against a property owner and designer in a New York labor law matter. The plaintiff was injured when he fell from a ladder stacked atop a bakers scaffold while performing renovation work on a four-story brownstone. The 16-foot ladder and the scaffold were provided by his employer—the general contractor—and set up at his employer’s discretion. The plaintiff filed an action against the owner of the property and the designer, alleging violations of various labor law claims, including labor law Sections 240(1), 241(6) and 200. The defendants’ motion for summary judgment, seeking a dismissal of all claims, was filed after the plaintiff’s depositions but before any of the defendants were deposed and with extensive discovery outstanding. The plaintiff opposed the motion and cross moved to compel further discovery. The Supreme Court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, dismissing all claims as the property owners qualified for the owner and two-family dwelling exception to the labor law. The trial court held that the defendants did not direct, supervise or control any of the plaintiff’s activities. Therefore, according to the affidavit, the single-family home exception did not apply. After oral argument, the Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s decision with costs.

We obtained a dismissal with prejudice of all claims in a Dragonetti action in federal court in the Western District of Pennsylvania. Our clients, a family law attorney and her law firm, were sued after they filed a series of emergency motions on behalf of a mother embroiled in a contentious divorce. The emergency motions concerned the welfare of children and contained sensitive allegations relating to purported abuse. Following the disposition of these motions, the husband and his current partner sued our clients for wrongful use of civil proceedings, abuse of process and defamation. Notably, the court’s opinion quoted our brief in support directly for its analysis of the controlling cases. The court dismissed all claims against our clients with prejudice.

We obtained a motion to dismiss in a data breach class action arising out of a ransomware attack against a hospital network. The attack compromised personal information of over 90,000 patients. In state court, our motion to dismiss was granted for lack of standing. The state court also granted our motion as to each cause of action for failure to state a claim on the basis that no implied contract existed with the entities for privacy protection and the negligence claims were not available under Florida law.

We were able to permanently close a matter involving a serious shoulder injury with a Section 20 resolution. In this case, the petitioner sustained significant injuries to her shoulder with an MRI showing tearing. The petitioner ultimately underwent two shoulder surgeries, and our own permanency expert found permanent disability of 7.5% partial total. Based upon wage statements we obtained, he asserted that any permanency award should be paid at a reduced rate—making the monetary award about $40,000 less than what would be paid at the full chart rate. When the judge attempted to have the parties settle for a higher percentage of disability—to make up for the lower rate—we indicated our intent to take the matter to trial. In order to avoid a trial, the judge indicated he would approve a Section 20 settlement. Thus, in an admitted claim involving serious injuries, two surgeries and our own doctor conceding permanency, we were able to close the matter out permanently with a Section 20 resolution.

We secured summary judgment in a case where the plaintiff fell down a flight of stairs at a NASCAR race in Monroe County, Pennsylvania, sustaining multiple fractures. The plaintiff alleged that she fell on water that had accumulated from patrons’ coolers dripping through the bleachers onto the staircase below. The court dismissed the plaintiff’s claims in their entirety due to her failure to adequately establish actual or constructive notice of a dangerous condition.

We secured a jury defense verdict in the Superior Court of New Jersey in a product liability case where the demand was $650,000. The plaintiff alleged a defect in the handle of an ultraviolet light disinfecting device that caused her to develop trigger finger. They alleged a design defect and failure to warn claim, claiming permanent damage to her ring finger and hand as a result of surgeries to correct the injury.

We succeeded in obtaining a per curiam affirmance in the First District Court of Appeal of a final order dismissing the plaintiff’s fire-loss subrogation claim against our client, a tenant in a leased property the plaintiff insured. The First District affirmed the trial court’s finding that the specific fire-loss provisions in the lease shifted the risk of loss to the landlord, the plaintiff’s insured. As a result, our client was a co-insured under the plaintiff’s policy. An insurance company cannot sue its own insured.

We received a favorable decision dismissing a Claim Petition involving a claimant who alleged injuries from working at home on the couch. Mike submitted the claimant’s testimony from third-party litigation demonstrating conflicts with her testimony in the workers’ compensation case to impact her credibility. He also emphasized the claimant’s pre-existing condition, even though she told her medical expert that she was asymptomatic, as the claimant had been receiving chiropractic care for 38 years. The judge found that the history relied upon by the claimant’s medical expert was based upon what the claimant told him, which he found not credible. The judge ultimately found that the claimant did not meet her burden of proving that she suffered a work-related injury.

We won summary judgment for a homeowners association. Our client filed a lawsuit to enforce the Covenant of Restrictions banning barnyard animals and claiming that the homeowners failed to obtain necessary approvals to build a coup and run for six chickens. The homeowners claimed the six chickens were emotional support animals, pursuant to the Fair Housing Act (FHA) and New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD). The court held that the chickens are not emotional support animals, pursuant to both FHA and NJLAD, and granted summary judgment. This is an area of first impression for the New Jersey courts as to whether non-domesticated animals can be considered emotional support animals.

Marshall Dennehey’s trial and appellate attorneys were successful in their representation of a national home improvement retail corporation’s tool and truck rental division. Handling the case at both the trial and appellate levels, the defense was successful in convincing the New Jersey appellate court to affirm the trial court’s decision on July 23, 2024. At the trial level, the judge granted our motion for a directed verdict and dismissed the case. The plaintiff had rented a flatbed truck in 2018 to move a cabinet he had just purchased. He alleged that a store employee gave him a set of ramps to use in the truck, but while doing so, they moved and he fell, sustaining serious and permanent injury to his back. The plaintiff alleged he later returned to the store and was told that he had been given the wrong ramps. The panel said that the record included no actual evidence that the ramp did not fit the truck beyond the employee’s saying it was the wrong ramp, or that the ramp slipped because it was incompatible with the truck. Even in his testimony, the panel said the plaintiff did not actually identify any physical cause for the ramp to move. “The dearth of evidence establishing the manner and cause of the slip or slide of the ramp rendered it impossible for the jury to make a reasoned determination as to whether defendant’s purported negligence proximately caused plaintiff’s fall and injuries,” the panel said. The court, therefore, affirmed the case on appeal. 

We obtained an order granting our motion to dismiss for failure to allege facts supporting a bad faith claim pursuant to Pennsylvania and federal case law. The case arose out of an uninsured motorist (UM) claim from a motor vehicle accident involving the plaintiff and a phantom vehicle. As a result of the accident, the plaintiff averred that he sustained various injuries, including to his head, neck, back, both knees and left shoulder. The plaintiff asserted an uninsured motorist benefit claim under his insurer’s policy, with $50,000 in UM benefits and with no stacking. In the complaint, the plaintiff asserted claims for breach of contract and bad faith. After we filed a motion to dismiss the bad faith count for failing to allege facts specific to support such a claim, the court agreed and dismissed the bad faith count with prejudice. Shortly after the decision, the plaintiff settled his UM claim for a little over $8,000.

We successfully defended a manufacturer serving OEMs in the aerospace, defense, semiconductor and high-tech industries. The case involved a claim petition with complex injury allegations and a potentially catastrophic initial judgement on the pleadings since the employer failed to timely answer the claim petition. When we became involved, we were able to limit the judgement on the pleadings to the date that a timely answer could have been filed. Ongoing disability in the case turned on the credibility of the claimant’s medical evidence. The claimant presented an expert witness who opined that the claimant’s virtual lifetime of serious low back and neck abnormalities were “aggravated” by his having sat down at work after feeling dizzy. Tony presented rebuttal expert evidence from a well-respected orthopedic surgeon demonstrating no architectural change in the claimant’s lumbar spine or cervical spine due to the alleged injury event and no ongoing or acute problems. The court accepted the defense evidence as credible, and the claimant was found to be without ongoing disability and fully recovered from any condition subject to the former judgement on the pleadings.

We secured summary judgment in a premises liability case in Northampton County, Pennsylvania, dismissing all claims against a national sporting goods retailer. The plaintiff claimed he slipped and fell on a slippery substance inside a the store while testing out bicycles. The plaintiff and his wife admitted that after he fell, they did not inspect the floor and quickly left the store. Months later, and after filing suit, the plaintiff and an engineer visited the store and claimed that there was an open can of bicycle grease in the area where the fall had occurred. Based on this evidence alone, the plaintiff theorized, through an expert report, that he must have fallen on bicycle grease negligently left on the floor by the store staff. Summary judgment was sought on the grounds that no witnesses to the fall ever actually identified any substance on the floor, and that the expert’s opinion was based on pure speculation. The court agreed and dismissed all claims against our client.

We won summary judgment for an online car sharing platform that connects vehicle owners (hosts) with travelers and locals (guests) seeking to book those vehicles for a fee in New York. The plaintiff alleged that he sustained serious injuries when he was involved in an automobile accident that collided with a vehicle listed on our client’s website. The Bronx County Supreme Court granted summary judgment in favor of our client, ruling that the defendant demonstrated that it is a peer-to-peer car sharing service; it does not provide rental services; it does not own, maintain or repair any of the vehicles on its platform; it is not responsible for the acts and omissions of the hosts or guests; and there is no agency relationship between defendant and the hosts or guests.

We obtained a defense jury verdict on behalf of a cardiologist. The patient came to the hospital with chest pain radiating to his arm and shortness of breath. The attending physician ordered a stress test, which was performed by the defendant cardiologist, that was interpreted as normal. The patient was then discharged from the hospital and died from a heart issue within two weeks. An autopsy found significant narrowing of all of the arteries of the heart, including a 90% narrowing in the LAD (i.e. the “widowmaker”). The pathologist and coroner opined that the decedent had a cardiac event caused by the significant narrowing of the arteries, which caused his death. The ensuing claim was that the stress test was misinterpreted by the defendant cardiologist. Our expert, a local cardiologist, testified that our client properly interpreted the stress test and that 10% of patients with coronary artery disease will still have a normal stress test. The jury returned a verdict finding no negligence by the defendant cardiologist.

We won a defense verdict in a high-exposure product liability trial, defeating claims that a client’s hair dye caused bladder cancer. The verdict was reached after a two-and-a-half week jury trial in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. The plaintiffs’ claim was that the hair dye made by global men’s hair dye manufacturer caused the husband’s bladder cancer. Prior to trial there was a significant demand, but the jury wholly rejected the plaintiffs’ negligence and strict liability claims. Background: The plaintiff was a part-time barber in Reading and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, from 1994–2008. On occasion, he used the defendant’s hair dye on his customers and himself. He also worked full-time as a book binder at various printing companies. In August of 2016 he was diagnosed with bladder cancer. He filed suit against the manufacturer, claiming that their hair dye was contaminated with the chemical 4-aminobiphenyl (4-ABP), which is a known carcinogen. Numerous expert witnesses were called by both sides—toxicologists, epidemiologists, organic/anylytical chemists, urologists and occupation physicians. The defense denied that the hair dye product contained 4-ABP because its manufacturing process is conducted in such a manner that it would not create 4-ABP. This was supported via corporate witnesses and multiple experts. After one hour and 13 minutes of deliberations, the jury found that the defendant was not negligent and their product was not defective. Read about this verdict in The Legal Intelligencer (subscription required): Pa. Jury Rejects Claims Linking 'Just For Men' Hair Dye to Cancer."  

We obtained a directed verdict in favor of our client in a high-risk defamation lawsuit. We were called to try the case on behalf of the CEO of a local chapter of a well-known national nonprofit after the plaintiff was permitted to amend the complaint to seek punitive damages from the CEO personally. The plaintiff was a volunteer at a camp. A decision was made to separate him from the camp and the organization. The plaintiff alleged that the CEO personally defamed him by alerting other volunteers and committees of the decision. He demanded an eight-figure sum prior to trial. After a six-day trial and several hours of argument at the close of the plaintiff’s case, the court granted our motion for directed verdict, ruling that the evidence presented confirmed that the communications by the CEO were covered by a qualified privilege and that, based on cross examination of the plaintiff and his witnesses, the defense established that there was no malicious conduct by the CEO. 

We successfully defended a national car-sharing company, resulting in a dismissal of all claims. The case involved a multi-party suit arising out of a commercial auto accident. Through aggressive pleading, we obtained a dismissal by arguing that both federal and state law provisions prohibited any claims against the car-sharing company.

We successfully represented an insurance company before the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. The court agreed with our argument that the claimant needed to provide notice of his work-related injury to the defendant insurance company within 120 days of the occurrence of the injury due to his combined status as sole proprietor/owner and also the employee in this matter. The judges distinguished the facts of the case due to the fact that the claimant was a sole proprietor, owner and the only employee of his own business. The court agreed that allowing the claimant to pursue a claim, by claiming that he provided notice to himself immediately when the accident occurred, but did not bother to report the injury to the insurance company for over a year thereafter, would result in an absurdity and put the insurance company at a disadvantage in the investigation of the claim. The court also noted that the definition of “employer” in certain portions of the Act includes not only the actual employer as a business itself, but also the employer’s duly authorized agent or its insurer, if such insurer has assumed the employer’s liability. Since the claimant failed to provide notice to the insurance company within 120 days of his injury, the court held that the Claim Petition was barred. The Claim Petition was dismissed, and the claimant was not entitled to any benefits at all.

We won a decision from the First District Court of Appeals affirming the trial court’s decision to grant our client’s motion to enforce an oral settlement agreement. We defended a condominium owners association against a lawsuit filed by several unit owners. The parties went to mediation, during which their attorneys agreed on the settlement terms. However, several of the plaintiff unit owners refused to sign the written settlement agreement. We argued at the trial court that the oral agreement should be enforced because memorializing the agreement in writing was not a material term of the parties’ agreement, and that the parties did not intend for the settlement agreement to only be enforceable upon the execution of the writing. Further, all the material terms of the agreement had been agreed on. The First District Court agreed and upheld the decision in favor of the condominium owners’ association.

We secured summary judgment in Monroe County, Pennsylvania, where the plaintiff filed suit claiming he contracted a fungal infection from staying at the defendant’s hotel. The plaintiff produced an expert microbiologist’s report, in addition to his treating physician’s records, in support of his claims. Summary judgment was sought on the grounds that the plaintiff’s expert was not competent enough to identify a specific fungus from photographs of the hotel room and the treating physician’s records were equivocal as to the cause of the plaintiff’s infection. Judge Arthur Zulick found the plaintiff’s microbiologist’s opinion speculative, as the microbiologist did not conduct an inspection of the hotel, obtain fungal samples or perform any lab testing. The judge further held that the plaintiff’s diagnoses of a fungal infection was not sufficiently supported by his treating doctor’s diagnoses. As a result, Judge Zulick entered judgment in favor of the defendant.

We obtained a jury defense verdict in Cumberland County, New Jersey. We defended a major propane company where it was claimed that they provided negligent service to a stove which allegedly caused a trailer fire. The plaintiffs lost everything in the fire, including their pets. They also sustained serious and permanent burn injuries. Total medical bills were in excess of $1.5 million, and there was a $227,000 Medicare lien. The plaintiffs’ demand was $5 million. In less than two hours, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defense.

We obtained summary judgment after oral argument with Judge Anne Swern in Kings County Supreme Court in New York. This case involved a motor vehicle accident where the plaintiff was a backseat passenger in an Uber that rear-ended a vehicle owned and operated by our clients. We established that our clients were stopped for 10-15 seconds at a light when they were rear-ended by the Uber driver, who was precluded and could not submit any testimony in this matter. Further, by establishing that the plaintiff was asleep at the time, she could not offer any evidence of how the accident happened. 

We secured summary judgment in a New York case in which the plaintiff claimed that she slipped and fell on stairs in our client’s building. The plaintiff alleged that she slipped on a wet condition on the stairway landing in an inadequately illuminated stairway. The defendant submitted an affidavit of its expert, which stated that the lighting measurements taken in the stairway complied with code. The defendant also demonstrated that it did not create the condition by submitting an affidavit of the building’s porter, who stated that neither he nor any other porter mopped that morning. The affidavit further established that the defendant did not have notice of the alleged wet condition or defective lighting, as it did not receive any complaints about a hazardous condition on the floor at any time before the accident, and that he inspected the premises approximately two hours prior to the plaintiff’s incident and did not observe any defective condition. In light of this evidence, the plaintiff’s claim that the area was mopped by the defendant was speculative, as she was unable to present any facts sufficient to establish when the stairway was mopped or if the cause of the wet stairway was due to the defendant’s mopping the stairway.

We obtained summary judgment in the Westmoreland County Court of Common Pleas in favor of our clients in a dispute over alleged excess water runoff. Our clients, a married couple, were sued by their neighbors for claims related to water runoff due to the installation of gutters and downspouts on a shed near the property line. We effectively argued for summary judgment on the plaintiffs’ injunction, trespass, nuisance and negligence claims, demonstrating that the plaintiffs lacked the necessary expert testimony to substantiate their case as required under Pennsylvania law. Additionally, the plaintiffs’ negligence claim was barred by the two-year statute of limitations, which had expired at least six years before the suit was filed.

We obtained a workers’ compensation defense verdict on behalf of an employer/carrier in a previously compensable claim by proving the claimant knowingly and intentionally made false, fraudulent, and misleading statements under oath during two depositions, and to two authorized treating providers, which were contradicted by surveillance and other evidence, ultimately barring the claimant from further benefits. The case involved multiple expert and fact witness testimony and presentation of multiple days of surveillance to the court.

We secured an Appellate Division decision affirming the trial court’s order dismissing a fraud and fraudulent concealment case filed against various attorneys and broker dealers. In its decision, the Appellate Division agreed with the trial court’s orders and opinions dismissing the case based on entire controversy, collateral estoppel and litigation privilege grounds. In this comprehensive decision, the Appellate Division held that the plaintiff’s claims were mirrored claims that had been fully litigated in a prior proceeding, where our clients either represented the litigants in the first case or were directly involved in the first case as defendants.

Our motion to dismiss was affirmed on appeal after the Ninth District Court of Appeals found that the plaintiff had sued a non sui juris entity by suing a county department in a personal injury suit. The plaintiff initially filed suit against the department, which was later dismissed without prejudice to allow more time to develop the plaintiff’s medical records. When he refiled his suit, he again named a county department as the defendant. We filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that a county department does not have the capacity to be sued. The plaintiff then filed a motion to amend the complaint and again named the county. In our motion to dismiss the amended complaint, we argued that the plaintiff was outside of the statute of limitations and that the change in defendant could not relate back to the originally filed suit. The plaintiff’s argument, that naming the department was merely a misnomer and that the amended complaint should relate back to the original filing, failed and the trial court dismissed the case. After oral argument, the appellate court affirmed the decision.

We won summary judgment in a challenging dram shop liability case against a large restaurant chain where the demand was $1 million. The plaintiff alleged our client was responsible for overserving the co-defendant driver prior to the subject motor vehicle accident. The court agreed with our arguments that the plaintiff failed to establish a violation of the The New Jersey Dram Shop Act. The plaintiff failed to present an expert report until opposing our motion for summary judgment. The expert report, which was submitted as an exhibit to the plaintiff’s opposition brief, did not extrapolate the defendant’s BAC at the time he left the defendant’s establishment. There was also no eyewitness testimony on the issue. The court rejected the plaintiff’s arguments that there was sufficient circumstantial evidence to support a jury’s conclusion that the co-defendant driver was visibly intoxicated at the time of service based on police observations at the scene of the accident and a (.17) BAC reading, which was administered approximately one hour and 30 minutes after leaving the restaurant. Distinguishing between prior case law and the subject circumstances, summary judgment was awarded based on the lack of either direct testimony or expert opinion as to the co-defendant’s state of intoxication at the time of service.