One of the many strengths of Trief & Olk is its ability to handle complex litigation involving issues that require inventive solutions. One way you can see the diversity and complexity of our cases is to view some of our reported cases as follows:
PERSONAL INJURY CASES
- Almonte v. Capco Enterprises, Inc., Docket No. A-3738-06T23738-06T2 (N.J. App. Div. 2008). The lower court dismissed the case on the grounds that this products liability and negligence action should be brought in New York, where the accident happened. On appeal, we obtained an order reversing the lower court and permitting the case to remain in New Jersey while its New Jersey connections were explored.
- Salgero v. Ingersoll-Rand Co., Ltd., Docket No. A-1535-06T21535-06T2 (N.J. App. Div. 2007). Our client was injured while working on a machine at a plant owned by another employer whose employee had removed a guard needed for the machine to operate safely. In the lower court, the case was dismissed because our client had filed for workers’ compensation, naming both his actual employer and, in the alternative, the owner of the plant because of his desperate need for medical care. On appeal, the Appellate Division reversed the lower court, found that the workers’ compensation filing and a subsequent order of that court did not prevent him from arguing that the owner of the plant was not his employer.
- Mann v. Cooper Tire Co., 33 A.D.3d 24, 816 N.Y.S.2d 45 (1st Dept. 2006), and 306 A.D.2d 23, 761 N.Y.S.2d 635 (1st Dept. 2003). We prevailed on two separate appeals in this action brought to recover for injuries suffered by a family as a result of a single car accident in Quebec when tread on a tire separated. In the first appeal, the defendants tried to have the case dismissed, claiming that Quebec law applied. After defendants’ attempt was unsuccessful, we sought to compel information and documents which defendants refused to produce, claiming that it was a trade secret and irrelevant. In a rare blistering opinion, the Court blasted defendants and awarded our clients the information and documents they requested.
- Surdo v. Albany Collision Supply, Inc., 8 A.D.3d 655, 779 N.Y.S.2d 544 (2d Dept. 2004). Our client suffered injuries to his eye when parts of a grinding disk struck him. The lower court dismissed the case because he was not wearing his safety glasses at the time of the accident. We were able to get the lower court’s dismissal of the case reversed and demonstrate that it was for the jury, not the court, to determine whether the defendant was the manufacturer of the product which injured our client and whether the failure to wear safety glasses prevented any recovery.
- Kalam v. K-Metal Fabrications, Inc., 286 A.D.2d 603, 730 N.Y.S.2d 299 (1st Dept. 2001). The lower court refused to allow the jury to be charged that there could be more than one cause of an accident. On appeal, however, we were able to convince the Appellate Court that the lower court had erred and obtained a new trial for our client.
- Ren v. Professional Steam-Cleaning, Inc., 271 A.D.2d 602, 706 N.Y.S.2d 169 (2d Dept. 2000). Our client was injured by a fall from a ladder. When we attempted to inspect the lawyer, the defendant first refused to produce it and then agreed to produce it. At the time of the inspection, however, the ladder had mysteriously disappeared. On appeal, the court ordered that the defendant could not present any evidence which contradicted our client’s testimony regarding the condition of the ladder.
- Mudy v. Moore Business Forms, Inc., 262 A.D.2d 375, 689 N.Y.S.2d 665 (2d Dept. 1999). After trial and this appeal, our client obtained a judgment in his favor against a company which reinstalled and reassembled a press which lacked guards, resulting in injury to our client.
- Rosado v. Royal-Pak Systems, Inc., 1999 U.S. Dist. Lexis 2161 (S.D.N.Y. 1999). In a products liability case involving the amputation of our client’s right hand by a trash compactor at work, we were able to prevail on a claim that the defendants were not responsible for the accident. We were able to defeat the claim by one of the defendants that it was not a “successor” to the manufacturer and had no liability for the manufacturer’s acts.
- Stryker v. Jericho Union Free School District, 244 A.D.2d 330, 663 N.Y.S.2d 868 (2d Dept. 1997). A child suffered the loss of an eye during a stickball game when he was struck in the eye with a bat which had slipped from the hands of the batter. The school district attempted to have the case dismissed on the ground that our client assumed the risk of playing, but we were able to defeat this attempt by showing that the supervising teacher failed to protect the child by placing him and other students behind a protective fence.
- Leon v. J & M Peppe Realty Corp., 190 A.D.2d 400, 596 N.Y.S.2d 380 (1st Dept. 1993). Our client suffered partial amputation of three fingers while doing construction work when a circular saw kicked back. The circular saw was not the proper equipment for the job. The case, decided just before the Court of Appeals reached a contrary ruling in another case, found that there was no obligation under the Labor Law to cite to a specific regulation of the Industrial Code in order to prevail. The court also rejected the defendants’ claim that our client assumed the risk of injury.
Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.