New York General Obligations Law Sections 11-100 and 11-101, commonly known as the Dram Shop Act, is interpreted by a vast body of case law distinct from that of general negligence and wrongful death cases. Issues such as standing, indemnification and contribution, damages and third-party practice are different in a Dram Shop context than in other bodily injury cases. Our grasp of these issues and our understanding of the effects of alcohol on the body, developed through our interactions with toxicologists, forensic pathologists, neuropsychologists and other experts, works to our clients' advantage.
Traffic Violations
A Bronx Court granted summary judgment on liability to the defendant driver, dismissing the Complaint, over plaintiff's opposition speculating that defendant might have been speeding.
Robbery
A jewelry manufacturer claimed that during the course of a robbery in which $5 million in gold bars were stolen, he was bound, gagged and slashed with a knife by the alleged perpetrators. The wounds required more than 100 sutures. He submitted a claim to his insurance company for the allegedly stolen goods and later brought suit against his insurer when the insurer refused to pay the claim. Based on the testimony of AGF&J's forensic expert and our cross-examination of the jeweler and his experts, AGF&J was able to persuade the jury that the jeweler's wounds were self-inflicted and the claimed robbery was a sham. The jury needed to deliberate for only 40 minutes to reach this verdict.
Assault
AGF&J defends a wide variety of general liability lawsuits as diverse as negligent entrustment, negligent hiring and supervision, false imprisonment, libel and slander and assault and battery. Our attorneys are adept at handling these matters from the inception of litigation through trial and appeals, if necessary.
Arson
Having handled cases involving everything from arson and fraud to business interruption and water, wind and earth movement claims, Mr. Binsky is committed to providing quality and cost effective defense services to the insurance industry. Among other successes, he has won summary judgment on the basis of the faulty workmanship, voluntary parting and sewer back-up exclusions, defeated a claim by a mortgagee in a commercial fire damage case and achieved verdicts in jury trials involving fraudulent losses.
New York construction accident cases, governed by the Labor Law, often involve complex issues, severe injuries and high exposure. AGF&J's litigation attorneys defend owners, general contractors, sub-contractors and employers in such cases. The firm's coverage attorneys analyze and interpret construction contracts and insurance policies in connection with indemnification and coverage issues; we also litigate declaratory judgment actions arising from these disputes.
Steven M. Berlin appeared with group of legal and insurance industry experts at the FOJP Insurance Risk Management Advisory Services team seminar "Managing Your Organization's Workers' Compensation Program" [Read News]
Wrongful Termination
During the litigation of a wrongful termination case, it came to light that the plaintiff had taped his conversations with co-workers and superiors in an unsuccessful attempt to obtain damaging statements against his employer. Instead, the tapes supported the employer's position that plaintiff had not been fired for discriminatory reasons. At trial, AGF&J successfully argued that the tapes should be played for the jury, paving the way for a favorable resolution of the case.
Employment Litigation
Here, Plaintiff's speech - reporting the Principal for allegedly attempting to change a Regents exam - was made pursuant to his official duties as an employee. As the Court said, "Regents Examinations are state-wide standardized tests that students must pass to graduate, and students' success or failure on such exams reflects on the principal of their school. If a principal were to remove a student's exam booklet from a locked vault and prompt her to alter the exam in order to achieve a passing grade, that might be an act of corruption by the principal. As an 'employee' of the New York City public schools, [Plaintiff] had an 'affirmative obligation to report' any conduct that might involve corruption to the SCI.'" It did not matter that the principal's alleged conduct did not involve "corrupt/criminal activity" or conflict of interest that Reporting Obligations expressly refer to. The Plaintiff had a duty to report what had allegedly happened, as a DOE employee. His union representative advised him of his duty, which is the reason why he finally did so after so much time. "This simply is not a case in which a teacher spoke out as citizen on a matter of public concern. Indeed, even [Plaintiff] was not concerned about [the Principal's] alleged misconduct. He 'didn't see it as anything.' [citing Plaintiff's deposition testimony]. [Plaintiff] was concerned about [Plaintiff]. He felt [the Principal] was "undermining" him. [Plaintiff] raised that grievance the way public school teachers normally try to resolve employment disputes: he spoke to his union representative. [Plaintiff] then called the SCI, not because he sought to exercise his First Amendment right to shine a light on corruption within a New York City public school, but because the union representative told [Plaintiff] he was required to do so."
Sexual Harassment
AGF&J's attorneys represent management in a wide variety of employment claims such as sexual harassment, age and racial discrimination and wrongful termination.
Rakshita Koirala concentrates her practice on litigation involving premises liability, municipal liability, auto & transportation, employment, and construction/labor law matters. Prior to joining Abrams, Gorelick, Friedman & Jacobson, Ms. Koirala practiced at a Fortune 500 insurance company where she conducted examinations under oath, resolved cases through alternative dispute resolution, and obtained a number of successful jury trial verdicts, including defense verdicts.
Construction Litigation
Steven DiSiervi, Partner Mr. DiSiervi’s practice concentrates on handling and trying complex products liability, construction/labor law, general liability and intentional torts cases. He has over 12 years experience in representing companies and individuals in high exposure cases in both State and Federal Court. Mr. DiSiervi also briefs and argues appeals, including an appeal regarding the interpretation of a construction contract that was decided by the Court of Appeals of the State of New York. He has lectured on a variety of subjects, including trial tactics, construction law and practice and New York Labor Law. He is rated AV by Martindale-Hubbell.
Property Damage
Thomas R. Maeglin, Partner Mr. Maeglin's practice is focused upon first- and third-party insurance coverage litigation, subrogation and property damage defense, in both state and federal courts. He has represented insurers in declaratory judgment actions regarding construction-related property damage and defect, with particular experience related to excavation, underpinning and demolition claims, as well as fire, water intrusion, and ruptured pipe losses. He has also represented parties seeking and defending against claims for additional insured coverage under commercial general liability policies, and has won summary judgment on rescission, trigger of coverage and a range of policy conditions and exclusions. His work has included coverage opinions on a wide range of issues arising from commercial property, business interruption, commercial general liability, builders risk, truckers liability, and professional liability policies; examinations under oath; and claim investigation. His clients include admitted and surplus lines insurers.
Jay S. Gunsher, Associate Mr. Gunsher has handled the defense of personal injury actions involving motor vehicles and trip- slip-and-fall accidents. He has handled inter-company arbitrations and uninsured/underinsured matters, including petitions to stay arbitration.
A debtor alleged that a debt collection agency had violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) by failing to mention in its collection letter that the amount of the debt could accrue interest. AGF&J won a pre-answer motion to dismiss in which the Federal District judge ruled that the letter did not violate the FDCPA. The judge stated that "even the least sophisticated consumer should know that debt accrues interest". Relying on that decision, AGF&J's attorneys have won several pre-answer motions on similar grounds.