Case Results

---

Papadopoulos v. Metropolitan Transp. Auth.

2021 NY Slip Op 01334 (App. Div. 1st Dep't. 2021)

Counsel for Appellant

Personal Injury Case

Unanimous modification of Plaintiff's motion for sanctions.  By modifying the trial court's order, defendants were precluded from offering any evidence at trial.  The decision established that so-ordered stipulations are self-executing, conditional orders of preclusion.  Read the full decision here.

Sanchez v. City of New York

2020 NY Slip Op 01970 (App. Div. 1st Dep't 2020)

Counsel for Appellant

Personal Injury Case

Unanimously reversing denial of plaintiff's motion for spoliation sanctions, on the law and facts, for failure to preserve discovery!  Defendants were sanctioned with an adverse inference against them at trial.  Read the full decision here.

Bautista v. Hach & Rose, LLP

176 A.D.3d 546 (App. Div. 1st Dept. 2019)

Counsel for Respondent

Legal Malpratice Case

Unanimously ruling in favor of our client (Respondent) by affirming the lower court's decision to deny a motion to dismiss.  The Court found that "plaintiff's allegations supported an inference of proximate causation and the documentary evidence did not refute those."  As a result, the case was able to proceed.

A.L. v City of New York

   60 Misc. 3d 1209(A) (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty 2018)

Counsel for Plaintiff

Case where a school aide failed to supervise students and intervene to break up a playground fight between two students.  The Court ruled in favor of the student (the Plaintiffs) and precluded the Defendants from offering evidence about their liability after they repeatedly failed to comply with discovery demands.  Read the full decision here.

This decision was published in the New York Law Journal on July 9, 2018.  An article discussing the case and its impact was also published on July 3, 2018.  Read the article here.

Dredger v Sutton & Edwards, Inc.

2013 NY Slip Op 32780(U) ** (Sup. Ct. Nassau Cnty 2013)

Counsel for Plaintiff

Case involving a trip and fall in a private parking lot where the Defendants repeatedly failed to disclose the proper liable party.  The Court ruled in favor of our client (the Plaintiff) denying the Defendants' motion to dismiss.   As a result, the case was able to proceed and we continued to advocate for our client.