Brianna L. Cyr

​Jennifer Moran (Partner-Madison, NJ) and Brianna Cyr (Associate-Madison, NJ) secured summary judgment in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Hudson County, on behalf of Wilson Elser’s client, a retail convenience store corporation (the store), in a high-exposure premises liability case involving a $1.5 million settlement demand and more than $1 million in claimed medical expenses. The plaintiff alleged permanent disability, including Complex Regional Pain Syndrome, after a slip and fall at the store. Her claimed damages were supported by extensive medical treatment, including multiple surgeries and a spinal stimulator implant. After nearly three years of contentious litigation, the matter was set for trial, with the plaintiff consistently refusing to negotiate below a seven-figure settlement demand.

Throughout the litigation, plaintiff's counsel sought to expand discovery, advance new liability and damages theories, and capitalize on deposition testimony from a former store employee who claimed the facility’s floors were "slippery even when dry" and that cleaning protocols were inconsistent. The plaintiff also relied on photographs purportedly showing debris and unsanitary conditions throughout the store, attempting to link the conditions to the alleged incident.

Jennifer and her team remained committed to a carefully executed defense strategy that culminated in a strategically timed motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability. They successfully demonstrated that the former employee's observations were made months after the incident and were therefore irrelevant to the condition of the premises at the time of the plaintiff's fall. They also established that the plaintiff could not identify what caused her to slip, could not prove how long any alleged hazardous condition existed, and relied on photographs that did not depict the area where the incident occurred.

Relying on controlling New Jersey law, including Nisivoccia v. Glass Gardens and Davis v. Brickman, Jennifer argued that the plaintiff's theory, if permitted by the court, would effectively impose strict liability on retail stores for any alleged “slippery” condition, without evidence of a dangerous condition or notice. The court adopted this reasoning, finding that the plaintiff's bare assertions and generalized complaints were insufficient as a matter of law, and granted summary judgment in the client's favor, dismissing all claims with prejudice.

Peter Espey (Of Counsel-Madison, NJ) and Brianna Cyr (Associate-Madison, NJ) successfully defended their client, a car dealership, in a putative class action.

The plaintiff alleged, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, that the dealership was overcharging its customers for registration fees. She also brought individual claims related to alleged malfunctions in the vehicle she purchased. The plaintiff had signed an agreement to arbitrate and a waiver of the right to bring a class action when she bought the vehicle. In lieu of an answer, a motion to dismiss was filed.

The plaintiff vigorously opposed the motion.  She argued the arbitration agreement was invalid because it allegedly impaired her statutory rights and precluded her from bringing a class action. Peter and Brianna filed a reply, and Peter argued the motion to dismiss. The Wilson Elser team maintained that the arbitration clause was unambiguous and easily located, rather than buried in the fine print. We also argued that the plaintiff's claims lacked merit, since she was charged the exact amount set by the State.

The Court agreed that the arbitration agreement and class action waiver were enforceable and concurred with Peter and Brianna’s arguments highlighting the strong public policy favoring arbitration. The plaintiff had a duty to read the contract she signed, and the statutes and case law required enforcement of the arbitration clause and class action waiver. The case was dismissed in favor of arbitration. This dismissal also means that the plaintiff cannot pursue her proposed class action.