​Jazmin Williams (Associate-White Plains, NY) and Jay Potter (Partner-New York, NY) obtained summary judgment in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Nassau County, on behalf of Wilson Elser’s client, a sign repair company, securing dismissal of all claims and cross-claims. The team persuaded the court to reject the plaintiff’s metallurgical engineering expert’s opinions as speculative and unsupported by the evidence.

The plaintiff, a convenience store patron, alleged that a portion of a store sign fell and struck her head and neck, causing a traumatic brain injury and requiring a multi-level cervical fusion. She made a $10 million pre-motion settlement demand, and the store owner sought defense and indemnification from the client as well. Our client had been retained to perform limited repairs to the sign approximately 13 months before the accident. Through a careful analysis of the governing contracts and testimony from the co-defendants, Jazmin established that the client acted solely as an independent contractor with a narrowly defined scope of work. Further evidence demonstrated that the parties specifically negotiated a one-year warranty on the repairs. This record helped establish Wilson Elser’s prima facie argument that the client owed no duty to inspect or reassess the sign after its work was completed.

Jazmin meticulously prepared the client's witnesses for deposition and secured testimony confirming the owner's acceptance of the completed work. Combined with the defense expert's opinions, the court agreed that the evidence eliminated any triable issue of fact as to whether the sign was defective when the client completed its repairs more than a year before the incident.

Without evidence linking the client’s repair work to the sign failure, the plaintiff’s engineering expert lacked a factual basis to support his causation opinions. The court agreed with Wilson Elser’s arguments that the plaintiff’s expert’s opinions were based on speculation and conjecture, rejected them outright, and dismissed both the plaintiff’s negligence claims against the client and the contractual indemnification and contribution claims asserted by the co-defendants.

Nancy Wright (Partner-New York, NY) and Michael Colgan (Associate-New York, NY) secured partial pre-answer dismissal in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf of Wilson Elser’s client, a prominent New York City independent school. The lawsuit, brought by our client’s former employee, asserted eleven claims alleging discrimination, a hostile work environment, and retaliation under Title VII and New York state and city anti-discrimination laws. The allegations were unusual in that they involved student-on-faculty conduct, rather than the more typical discrimination claims focused on faculty/employer-on-faculty behavior. Despite Nancy and Michael notifying the plaintiff of his pleading deficiencies and that the applicable statute of limitations barred most of the claims, the plaintiff proceeded in court. Wilson Elser filed a compelling motion to dismiss, expanding on arguments demonstrating that many of the claims were time-barred and/or legally deficient. The Southern District Court agreed, granting pre-answer dismissal in the client’s favor on ten of plaintiff’s eleven claims and leaving only a single city law claim to proceed. 

​John Hsu (Partner-Long Island, NY), Daniel Joseph (Associate-New York, NY), and Isuri Poththewela (Associate-Long Island, NY) obtained summary judgment in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, on behalf of Wilson Elser’s contractor client in a workplace injury case. The plaintiff claimed to have sustained serious injuries, including a traumatic brain injury (TBI), when a rolling paint cart struck him on a loading dock while working at a construction site. He alleged violations under New York Labor Law §§ 240(1), 241(6), and 200. John and Daniel conducted a thorough analysis of the loading dock surveillance footage, which clearly established that the instrumentality of harm was neither launched, controlled, nor possessed by our client, a contractor on the premises hired to perform repair work on the building’s fifth floor, far from the alleged accident location.

In support of Wilson Elser’s motion for summary judgment, John and Daniel tendered the original contract, along with affidavits from the client’s foreman and branch director, as exhibits to the affirmation in support. They further argued that the client owed no legal duty to the plaintiff and that the client’s work at the premises was separate and distinct from the loading dock operations that allegedly caused the plaintiff’s injuries. They also sought dismissal of all cross-claims against the client.

The court agreed and dismissed the plaintiff’s claim and the cross-claims against the client. In reaching that decision, the court reasoned that the opposition tendered no evidence and relied solely on the affirmation of counsel, which was purely hearsay and devoid of evidentiary value. Thus, there being no real, substantive opposition submitted, the motion for summary judgment was granted in its entirety.

Nancy Wright (Partner-New York, NY), Tatjana Calimpong-Burke (Associate-New York, NY), and Jenna Agatep Slater (Associate-New York, NY) secured a complete defense victory for Wilson Elser’s client, a University, when the Honorable Jed. S. Rakoff of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted the University’s motion for summary judgment in its entirety and dismissed all claims. With his pre-trial procedures often described as the "rocket docket," Judge Rakoff directed both parties to be "trial ready" by May 18, 2026, after the filing of the University's answer on January 16, 2026. Operating under this less-than-ideal discovery schedule, the New York team completed 12 depositions and extensive summary judgment motion and cross motion practice by May 13, 2026.
 
The plaintiff, a former undergraduate with a diagnosed disability, alleged the University discriminated and retaliated against her based on her use of her dog, Zeus, which she claimed was a service animal. She asserted violations of the Fair Housing Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law, challenging our client’s handling of her accommodation requests related to Zeus, air-conditioning requests, scholarship eligibility, and eventual expulsion.
 
The New York team demonstrated that the plaintiff, not the University, caused the breakdown in the required cooperative dialogue, having refused to sign the University's universally applied Assistance Animal Agreement and failing to provide required documentation or properly request the accommodations she later claimed were denied. The defense also established significant weaknesses in plaintiff's contention that Zeus qualified as a service animal, highlighting evidence that showed the plaintiff inconsistently characterized Zeus as both a service animal and an emotional support animal; that her therapist reclassified the dog as a service animal only after initially identifying him as an emotional support animal and acknowledged that she was not an expert in animal classifications; and that the plaintiff herself conducted the dog's training, despite surveillance videos showing Zeus habitually disregarding her commands and barking at students. Wilson Elser further challenged the claimed effectiveness of the animal, demonstrating that the therapist's opinions were based solely on the plaintiff's self-reporting, as she had never met Zeus and lacked expertise regarding service or support animals. Nancy, Tatjana, and Jenna also established that the plaintiff's air-conditioning requests were unrelated to her disability. On the retaliation claims, they showed legitimate, non-retaliatory grounds for each challenged action, including a scholarship denial based on the plaintiff's transfer-student status and an expulsion triggered by the plaintiff’s blatant misconduct captured on a surveillance recording, and independently upheld by the University President on appeal.
 
The Court denied plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment and granted Wilson Elser’s motion in full, directing entry of final judgment in favor of the University and closing the case on June 15, 2026.

Paul Karp (Partner-New York, NY) and Francis Howell (Associate-White Plains, NY) obtained a defense verdict on behalf of their neurologist client following a jury trial in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Rockland County. The plaintiff, a police officer, alleged that the neurologist failed to timely diagnose and treat myasthenia gravis, a neuromuscular disorder that causes muscle weakness in the voluntary muscles. He claimed that the alleged delay in diagnosis and treatment resulted in a “myasthenic crisis,” causing respiratory failure and admission to an intensive care unit, and negatively affected his ability to be a father and carry out normal daily activities. The plaintiff had missed more than one year of work following his ultimate diagnosis. At trial, the plaintiff’s expert testified to 17 alleged departures from the standard of care and that the failure to promptly diagnose myasthenia gravis worsened disease progression and diminished responsiveness to treatment.

Using meticulously detailed demonstrative exhibits, Paul guided the jury through the plaintiff’s course of treatment during the 6 months of alleged negligence, during which 11 medical professionals across 9 specialties evaluated him. Through expert testimony, Paul challenged the plaintiff’s claim that he suffered a myasthenic crisis, establishing that the plaintiff’s Negative Inspiratory Force (NIF) score never met the clinical threshold for such a diagnosis, despite repeated references to a "myasthenic crisis" in the non-party hospital records. Paul also undermined the plaintiff’s neurology expert’s credibility through cross-examination regarding the expert’s extensive work on behalf of petitioners in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.

Frank drafted a successful memorandum of law arguing that the verdict sheet should be limited to a single liability question, despite the plaintiff’s numerous alleged departures from the standard of care, and only one liability question was submitted to the jury for consideration. He also filed a memorandum of law to preclude the plaintiff from making an improper argument to the jury on summation. In closing, Paul argued that the plaintiff failed to meet his burden of proving liability because his symptoms were diffuse, vague, and inconsistent with a diagnosis of myasthenia gravis during the relevant period. He further argued that the plaintiff failed to establish that any alleged delay in diagnosis caused a worsened prognosis or the claimed myasthenic crisis.

After deliberating for less than one hour, the jury returned a defense verdict in favor of Wilson Elser’s neurologist client. 

Jacqueline Hattar (Partner-White Plains, NY) and Urvashi Sinha (Partner-New York, NY) obtained summary judgment on behalf of Wilson Elser’s client, a truck driver, in the New York State Supreme Court, Bronx County. The plaintiff alleged that our client was negligent in the ownership and operation of his tractor-trailer truck by illegally parking it on a Bronx roadway. As a result of the alleged accident, the plaintiff claimed to have sustained serious injuries to his right shoulder and lumbar spine, requiring two surgeries, and sought to recover the client’s $1 million policy limit. Before depositions were completed, Jackie moved for summary judgment, seeking dismissal of the plaintiff’s complaint and all cross-claims. Jackie and Urvashi argued that, based on the police investigation and witness statements, our client’s truck was legally parked and did not make contact with the plaintiff’s vehicle, which had been struck by the co-defendant’s vehicle. In opposition, the plaintiff argued that the motion was premature because depositions had not yet been completed and that triable issues of fact existed as to whether Wilson Elser’s client was lawfully parked and whether the parked truck caused or contributed to the accident. In reply, Jackie and Urvashi maintained that the plaintiff failed to submit any evidence in admissible form, such as affidavits, photographic, or video evidence, to establish that the client’s truck was illegally parked in the roadway. The court agreed with Wilson Elser’s arguments and granted the motion in all respects. Jackie drafted the motion papers, and Urvashi orally argued the motion before the court on behalf of our client. The plaintiff’s action is continuing against the co-defendants, the driver and the vehicle owner.  

Jonathan Meer (Partner-New York, NY) and Angela Sekerka (Of Counsel-Chicago, IL) secured dismissal of two housing discrimination charges before the Texas Workforce Commission.

On May 4, 2026, the Commission issued a letter of determination dismissing claims of housing discrimination based on race and retaliation.  The Commission found that the Respondent did not act to terminate the Complainant’s tenancy, nor did they take an action against this tenant that was different from someone in a different protected class.  The Commission found that the Respondents presented direct evidence suggesting that many of the actions were standard and universally applied in their policy enforcement.  It noted that the Complainant provided no evidence that a tenant of a different racial group or disability status committed a similar lease violation and was not issued an infraction or faced more lenient treatment.  After conducting an on-site inspection, the Commission also noted that interviews with other residents generally supported the absence of observed racial or disability discrimination.  As to the claim of retaliation, the Commission found that the Complainant did not even engage in an activity protected by the Texas Act, let alone be subjected to an adverse action.

In a separate matter on May 8, 2026, the Commission dismissed claims of housing discrimination based on national origin and retaliation.  The Commission found that while the Respondent did restrict the Complainant’s use of the community workshop until she signed a waiver and issued formal violations, it was not due to her national origin.  The Complainant and all residents, including those who identify with a different national origin, were required to sign a waiver, and the Commission found that the Complainant was denied access solely because she explicitly refused to sign the mandatory safety form.  The Commission noted that she received a notice to vacate, not because of her national origin but because her rent was unpaid.  With respect to the claims that she was unfairly targeted by the annual audit process, the auditor who worked remotely had never met the Complainant, was unaware of the Complainant’s national origin, and used the income calculation using a locked-cell spreadsheet based on standardized state formulas used for all tenants, including those for non-Russian residents.  Further, the Commission found that there was no retaliation as the Respondents had documented issues with lease violations and failure to complete the income audit before she engaged in any potentially protected activity.

Thomas O’Connor (Associate-White Plains, NY) and Bernice E. Margolis (Partner-White Plains, NY) secured pre-answer dismissal of all claims in the Supreme Court, New York County​, on behalf of Wilson Elser’s property owner clients in a residential habitability action. The plaintiff, a long-term occupant of a New York City loft unit, alleged that our clients failed to maintain the premises and engaged in a coordinated effort to force her out to increase rent. The complaint cataloged a wide range of alleged deficient building conditions, including unsafe stairways, pest infestations, structural defects, lack of heat and hot water, exposed wiring, and mold. The plaintiff further claimed to have suffered significant emotional and physical injuries, including panic attacks, depression, and gastrointestinal distress. Based on these allegations, the plaintiff advanced numerous causes of action sounding in negligence, premises liability, breach of the warranty of habitability, breach of quiet enjoyment, private nuisance, constructive eviction, and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, seeking substantial compensatory and punitive damages.

Recognizing all claims were either time-barred or improperly pled, Tom and Bernice filed a pre-answer motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint on multiple, independent grounds. Central to their motion was the argument that the plaintiff’s claims concerning building conditions, habitability, and Loft Law compliance fell within the primary jurisdiction of the New York City Loft Board, and that the plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies barred the action. The motion further established that the emotional distress claims were time-barred, that the plaintiff’s attempt to plead a Penal Law violation failed as a matter of law for lack of a private right of action, and the claims against the individual defendants were legally deficient.

In response, the plaintiff did not meaningfully engage with the merits of Wilson Elser’s motion, instead attempting to sidestep dismissal by filing successive amended complaints without leave of court, in an effort to moot the motion. In their reply, Tom and Bernice squarely addressed and neutralized this tactic. They demonstrated that the filings were procedurally improper, contravened the Court’s directives, and failed to cure any substantive defects, emphasizing that the plaintiff’s latest pleading was merely a “difference without distinction.”

The Court adopted our position in full, holding that the plaintiff failed to substantively oppose the motion, that the unauthorized amended pleading was a nullity, and that the plaintiff’s failure to address the arguments made on behalf of our clients constituted abandonment of her claims. The Court dismissed the complaint in its entirety.

Allison Graffeo (Partner-New York, NY) succeeded on an unopposed summary judgment motion in the Supreme Court, Bronx County for Wilson Elser’s psychiatrist client. In this medical malpractice matter, the plaintiff sued on behalf of the decedent, the wife of a Brooklyn clergyman and former attorney. The decedent, who was recovering from surgery at a nursing rehab facility, developed sepsis and suffered a stroke. The plaintiff sued the nursing facility and various physicians, including our client, claiming the psychiatrist negligently recommended medication that caused or contributed to the decedent’s susceptibility to infection and/or masked her symptoms.

At the close of discovery, all parties moved for summary judgment, and the plaintiff’s counsel advised that he would be opposing all motions. Wilson Elser’s motion, which was supported by experts in psychiatry and infectious disease medicine, established a prima facie entitlement to summary judgment on both departure and causation grounds. The plaintiff’s counsel was ultimately unable to secure expert support in opposition, and the court granted Allison’s motion on behalf of our psychiatrist client. Several codefendants remain in the case.
 

Angela Sekerka (Of Counsel-Chicago/New York, NY) and Jonathan Meer (Partner-New York, NY) secured dismissal of a claim alleging national origin discrimination in housing before the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). In this matter, HUD found no probable cause that national origin was considered in the respondents’ handling of the claimant’s maintenance requests or his concerns regarding unauthorized vehicles in his assigned parking space. HUD noted that even if the comment “go back to your country” was made, this single isolated comment did not rise to the level of harassment or discriminatory intent in connection with the respondents’ processing of the claimant’s maintenance requests. HUD also noted that additional maintenance requests could not be completed because the complainant refused to grant access to his unit. With respect to the parking issue, HUD found insufficient evidence of discriminatory motive based on national origin, observing that the respondents attempted to locate the vehicle owner parked in the complainant’s spot and, when unsuccessful, offered the claimant’s monetary compensation for the inconvenience.

Jonathan Meer (Partner-New York, NY)​ and Angela Sekerka (Of Counsel-Chicago/New York, NY) secured dismissal of a disability discrimination housing claim before the Ohio Civil Rights Commission. The charge, brought by the tenants' children, arose from a request to modify the tenant’s shower in the unit to accommodate a disability. During its investigation, the Commission found that the respondents permitted the requested modification, provided the tenant covered the cost, as required under applicable law. When the tenant indicated they could not afford the modification and instead requested early termination of the lease, the respondents also granted that request, allowing termination without a penalty.  As such, the Commission found that the allegations of disability discrimination were unsupported and dismissed the charge.

​Joseph Francoeur (Partner–New York) and Eve Mouzouris (Of Counsel–New York) obtained dismissal of an amended complaint asserting violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, N.Y. General Business Law § 349, N.Y. Judiciary Law § 487, RICO, negligence, gross negligence, legal malpractice, unjust enrichment, prima facie tort, and conversion. The complaint, filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, arose out of an underlying 2009 foreclosure action that was litigated over a ten-year period. Plaintiff brought the federal action on behalf of herself and a purported class of similarly situated New York residents. Our client represented the bank in the underlying foreclosure action, involving a mortgage held by the plaintiff on a property in Queens, New York. At the crux of plaintiff's suit were allegations that our client and the bank were engaged in a fraudulent scheme to miscalculate interest due and owing on a residential mortgage to obtain vastly inflated payouts from court-ordered foreclosure sales. Contrary to plaintiff's claims, the methodology utilized by our client for applying interest in the underlying foreclosure action was consistent with long-standing practices in the legal community and had been approved by referees and judges in a myriad of cases. Indeed, the methodology was approved in the underlying action and was not challenged by plaintiff or her counsel, despite multiple opportunities to do so.

We filed a pre-answer motion to dismiss, arguing that plaintiff's claims should be dismissed in their entirety on various procedural and substantive grounds. The Court issued a comprehensive decision addressing plaintiff's claims and concluded, as we had asserted, that all of them were time-barred. Critically, the Court credited our position that plaintiff herself conceded all causes of action began accruing on September 12, 2019 – the filing date of the Referee's Report of Sale – yet she did not commence this action until April 3, 2025, well beyond the applicable limitation periods for each claim. The Court further rejected plaintiff's equitable tolling arguments, finding that she failed to plead any affirmative acts of concealment by the law firm, that the interest calculations she challenged were publicly filed and disclosed on the record, and that she failed to allege any steps she took to exercise reasonable diligence in discovering her claims.
 
The Court also adopted our position that collateral estoppel independently barred plaintiff's various claims, holding that they rested entirely on allegations that the law firm filed fraudulent or deceptive documentation containing interest miscalculations in the underlying state court foreclosure action – issues the state court had already resolved against plaintiff when it determined the interest calculations and foreclosure were valid. Although the Court found that plaintiff's Judiciary Law § 487 claim was not barred by collateral estoppel because the question of the law firm's intent to deceive had not been previously litigated, that claim was nevertheless dismissed as time-barred.

Mathew Ross (Partner-White Plains, NY) and Lauren Zink (Partner-New York, NY) obtained a pre-answer dismissal of a 106-page complaint in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, in which the plaintiff alleged a litany of federal and New York state claims against Wilson Elser’s clients, a psychology group, and its psychologist employee, along with various other defendants. Allegations included RICO violations, deprivation of procedural due process, equal protection violations, conspiracy to interfere with civil rights, fraud/deceit, intentional/negligent infliction of emotional distress, professional malpractice, negligent hiring, retention, and supervision, and spoliation of evidence.

In this federal matter, the pro se plaintiff – an attorney –brought sweeping claims arising out of pending New York Family Court custody proceedings, alleging that a broad group of defendants, including our clients, the sitting Family Court judge, the plaintiff’s ex-wife and her counsel, court-appointed representatives, government agencies, and others engaged in a years-long scheme to violate his constitutional rights and interfere with his relationship with his daughter. As to our clients, the plaintiff alleged negligent hiring and supervision, claiming the psychology group’s employee, who was hired by the plaintiff and his wife together for a period between 2019 and 2020 to treat their daughter, falsified reports and records, triggering an investigation that led to the suspension of his custodial rights.

Prior to answering, Mat and Lauren filed a pre-answer motion seeking to dismiss the entirety of the plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), arguing for dismissal on multiple grounds. They maintained that the plaintiff’s federal claims against the client were barred pursuant to the Younger abstention and Rooker-Feldman doctrines. They further argued that the plaintiff’s New York State claims were subject to dismissal because the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, coupled with the fact that the plaintiff’s New York State claims were time-barred pursuant to the respective statute of limitations.

In a 30-page decision, the court granted Mat and Lauren’s motion in full, agreeing that the Younger abstention doctrine barred the plaintiff’s federal claims because they interfered with ongoing state custody proceedings, and that the plaintiff’s conclusory allegations of bad faith were insufficient to overcome that bar. The court also found the claims precluded by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which prohibits federal review of state court custody determinations. With respect to the plaintiff’s RICO and Section 1985(3) claims, the court dismissed these claims on the basis that they were conclusory, that the plaintiff did not adequately allege that any of the defendants are state actors, and that the plaintiff otherwise failed to sufficiently plead facts showing a plausible entitlement to relief.  Finally, the judge held that the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s state law claims, given that the anchoring federal claims were dismissed. As such, the judge directed the Clerk to enter judgment dismissing the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Jonathan Meer (Partner-New York, NY) and Angela Sekerka (Of Counsel-White Plains, NY) secured a no probable cause determination for a landlord client in a housing discrimination matter before the Maryland Commission on Civil Rights. The complainant tenant alleged that our client/respondent discriminated against her based on disability and source of income, as well as claiming retaliation. The investigation established that the respondent lacked knowledge of the complainant’s physical disability and determined that the only request for reasonable accommodation by the complainant included documentation exclusively supporting the need for an emotional support animal (ESA). The complainant, however, asserted that she requested accommodation for a severe breathing disorder, while our client maintained that no such request or medical documentation of a respiratory condition was ever received. While the complainant successfully obtained accommodation for her mental health needs, no evidence supported the existence of a formal request concerning a physical breathing disability. The investigation concluded that the respondent did not treat the complainant differently from other tenants or subject her to harassment based on her disability or source of income.

Christopher W. Hofmann (Associate-White Plains, NY) obtained a decision from the Bronx County Supreme Court granting complete summary judgment in favor of a large, certified home health agency client based in New York City. The action, sounding in negligence and medical malpractice, concerned skilled nursing visits provided to the plaintiff’s decedent, an insulin-dependent diabetic, at home following her admission to a non-party hospital. The plaintiff alleged that the agency failed to monitor the decedent’s blood glucose levels properly and failed to correctly administer insulin and/or monitor insulin dosages, resulting in a worsening of her diabetic condition. The decedent subsequently developed altered mental status, hypothermia, and hypoxia secondary to severe hypoglycemia, resulting in her death.

Chris moved for summary judgment, arguing that responsibility for administering insulin and monitoring the decedent’s blood glucose levels rested exclusively with the decedent’s caregiver. The motion was supported by a nursing expert who opined that the agency’s initial and ongoing nursing assessments properly determined that the caregiver demonstrated appropriate diabetes-specific knowledge and self-management skills, including recognition and treatment of hypoglycemia, insulin administration, and blood glucose monitoring. In further support of the motion, an expert geriatrician affirmed that the sole proximate cause of the decedent’s severe hypoglycemia and related symptoms was due to a medication error, namely, the administration of excessive insulin by the decedent’s caregiver. Plaintiff opposed the motion by arguing that the agency should not have allowed the decedent’s caregiver – an untrained “layperson” – to administer insulin and monitor the decedent’s blood glucose levels.

In granting summary judgment, the court found that the opinion of plaintiff’s expert was “pure speculation,” and agreed with Chris’s arguments that the opinion of plaintiff’s expert was conclusory, without evidentiary support, and outright contradicted by the medical records and testimony which established that the decedent’s caregiver had an long-standing history and demonstrated competence with respect to performing these tasks. The Court further agreed with Chris’s arguments that the sole departure raised in opposition was not previously pleaded, that the plaintiff’s expert physician was unqualified to opine regarding the standard of care applicable to skilled nursing, and that the plaintiff failed to explain how any alleged error by the decedent’s caregiver was attributable to our agency client.

Joshua Cash (Partner-New York, NY), Jessica Zemsky (Partner-White Plains, NY), and Kyle Hall (Associate-New York, NY) secured a unanimous defense verdict in the Supreme Court of New York, Queens County, for Wilson Elser’s casino client. The elderly plaintiff in this case alleged that she slipped and fell on water in the casino’s food court due to a purported ceiling leak. Plaintiff relied on a water-stained ceiling tile she observed after the fall while looking up, but admitted she never saw water leaking and could not establish how long the condition existed. Surveillance footage was central to the defense. We presented a video showing 44 patrons traversing the area without incident in the 12 minutes before the fall and demonstrated that a separate slip that occurred just minutes earlier in a different location effectively defeated notice. Expert testing further undermined plaintiff’s claims: our expert confirmed the floor was slip-resistant even when wet, and on cross-examination, plaintiff’s expert conceded his testing did not reveal a hazardous condition and that his leak theory was speculative. The court also denied the plaintiff’s request for a missing document charge related to alleged post-incident photographs. We argued that there was no willful or contumacious conduct on our client’s part, as the officer who allegedly took the photos was no longer employed, the plaintiff never sought his deposition or the photos, and no trial testimony established that the photos currently exist, an essential requirement under PJI 1:77. The Wilson Elser team ultimately argued that any theories as to how the water got on the floor were merely speculative, no dangerous condition could be pinpointed, and the plaintiff failed to prove notice. Despite the plaintiff’s arthroscopic knee surgery and a $300,000 demand (reduced to $100,000 during trial), the jury deliberated briefly after rewatching the video and returned a unanimous verdict finding the area reasonably safe.

Richard W. Boone Jr. (Partner-New York, NY), Siobhán A. Mueller (Of Counsel-New York, NY), and Kieren R. Lang (Associate-New York, NY) secured a complete victory in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, obtaining dismissal of all claims against their client, a respected law firm. The court held that the client firm could not be held liable for malpractice because it never represented the plaintiff, and because a lawyer’s past conduct cannot be imputed to a new firm joined after the alleged wrongdoing occurred. The plaintiff had named the client firm solely because his former attorneys later joined it – long after their representation had ended.  

In support of the motion to dismiss, Rich, Siobhán, and Kieran argued that all claims against the client firm must fail because it had no involvement in the underlying dispute and, as such, the plaintiff never had an attorney-client relationship with the firm. The team further maintained that the plaintiff’s claims were based on speculation, conclusory allegations, and impermissible second-guessing of the attorneys’ legal strategies, and therefore did not rise to the level of actionable malpractice, fraud, or a violation of the Judiciary Act, as alleged. The court agreed with Wilson Elser’s arguments, granting the motion to dismiss.

Mathew Ross (Partner-White Plains) and David Umansky (Associate -New York, NY), assisted by paralegal Martha Chavez and firm interns Jessica Pizzi and Francesca Rocha, secured an outstanding result in Bronx Supreme Court, New York, on behalf of a construction company client after a nearly four-week trial featuring 13 witnesses, including nine experts. The plaintiff, a union bricklayer, alleged that he fell from one scaffold level to the level below, sustaining significant injuries, and was taken to the hospital via ambulance. He had a two-level cervical fusion surgery, a single-level lumbar fusion surgery, and the right ankle injury required no surgery. During the trial, the jury found that while the plaintiff did fall from a bicycle scaffold to the scaffold below, Mat and David’s proximate cause arguments, asserting that the fall was not the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s cervical fusion or ankle injuries, were compelling, and limited proximate cause to the lumbar spine injury only. Despite a $13.5 million demand at the start of trial and plaintiff’s $22 million closing summation request, the jury returned a verdict of $759,800; a post-closing high-low agreement was agreed upon, eliminating appeal risk and resulting in $1 million less than what was offered to the plaintiff pre-closings.

Nancy Wright (Partner-New York, NY) and Yusha Hiraman (Of Counsel-New York, NY) garnered a low five-figure nuisance value settlement for their employer client in a matter slated for a public hearing before the New York State Division of Human Rights following a probable cause finding. This matter involved claims of age, disability, and sex/gender discrimination, as well as sexual harassment, brought by a former employee who abandoned her job after filing an internal complaint, and later alleged she was constructively discharged for complaining. The pre-hearing settlement conference was scheduled before an Administrative Law Judge, during which Yusha skillfully handled the settlement negotiations, highlighting the claims’ deficiencies and resolving the matter with the State Division attorney within an hour. Notably, Yusha emphasized the complainant’s clear failure to mitigate damages for more than two years – an argument that helped drive the swift resolution.

Zachary Karetsky (Associate-New York, NY) and Thomas Comer (Partner-New York, NY) secured summary judgment and dismissal of all claims against Wilson Elser’s client, a construction site safety manager, in a personal injury action in the New York Supreme Court, New York County. The plaintiff alleged she was struck by fencing that fell from barricades along a temporary pedestrian walkway adjacent to an active construction site, suing the property owner and the general contractor. They, in turn, brought a third-party action against our client seeking contractual indemnification, breach of contract, contribution, and common law indemnification. Zach and Tom moved for summary judgment, arguing that the client never executed the proposed safety consulting agreement containing indemnification obligations and, regardless, owed no duty of care because a site safety manager without authority to control or stop work cannot be liable in negligence. The defendants opposed on various contract, insurance, and factual grounds.

The court granted Wilson Elser’s motion in its entirety, finding – consistent with First Department precedent – that the client’s role was limited to recommending safety practices and did not include site control. On that basis, the court held that there were no grounds to impose common-law negligence liability on a site safety manager lacking site control authority. Without a viable negligence claim, all third-party claims and cross-claims necessarily failed, resulting in complete dismissal in our client’s favor.

Joseph Francoeur (Partner-New York) and Hayley Weisman (Associate-New York) obtained early dismissal of a fraud claim in the Kings County Supreme Court, Brooklyn, New York, against an attorney who represented the plaintiff’s ex-wife at the closing of the sale of the former marital residence. The plaintiff alleged that the attorney fraudulently transferred the property in 2013 without his knowledge or consent, invoking the two-year discovery rule to revive the otherwise time-barred claim and asserting he first learned of the purported fraud in 2024. Joe and Hayley filed a pre-answer motion to dismiss the complaint, arguing the plaintiff’s claim was barred by the statute of limitations and citing a 2015 New Jersey Family Court filing in which the plaintiff sought judicial intervention regarding the distribution of the sale proceeds – demonstrating he knew of the sale and could have discovered the purported fraud at that time. In arguing the motion, Hayley directed the court to the judgment of divorce, which granted the ex-wife a receivership over the plaintiffs’ interest in the property – a key fact that undermined the fraud claim entirely. The court agreed, holding that the plaintiff was on notice of the title transfer and the sale, that the discovery rule did not apply, and that the claim was time-barred. The court granted Wilson Elser’s motion and dismissed the complaint.

​Sarah Fink (Of Counsel-Long Island, NY) and Wisaal Jahangir (Associate-New York, NY)​ secured a favorable resolution in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York, successfully settling a federal copyright infringement action against their high-end luxury hotel client that had gone bankrupt since the alleged violation. The plaintiff, a photographer, sought relief under the U.S. Copyright Act, including actual damages and disgorgement of profits (or, in the alternative, statutory damages per alleged infringement), injunctive relief, litigation costs and attorneys’ fees, and pre-judgment interest. Statutory damages under the Act can reach up to $30,000 per work for non-willful infringement and up to $150,000 per work for willful infringement. Sarah and Wisaal’s primary argument was that the plaintiff could not show any profits from the violation, given that the hotel went out of business, leveraging the fact that statutory damages generally approximate actual damages, and that damages in copyright cases include profits to the defendant. Arguing that the plaintiff’s initial demand of $40,000 was therefore unreasonable, Wilson Elser resolved the matter for $10,000, closing the case on terms advantageous to the client.

Chris Peticca (Associate-White Plains, NY) defended a hospital in a case in which the plaintiff pled that the our client’s conduct was “careless” and “reckless,” and negligent. In conferences and, ultimately, by motion submitted on the court’s invitation, Chris convinced Judge Frishman (Bronx County) to strike the “careless” and “reckless” language from the pleadings. The plaintiff appealed. On the appeal handled by Julia Audibert (Associate-New York, NY) and Judy Selmeci (Partner-New York, NY), the plaintiff challenged the timeliness of the motion and argued that the possibility of punitive damages lingers, including pursuant to Pub. H. Law 2801-d. We pointed out in response that none of that is right, arguing that the motion was made when the judge invited the defendant to submit it, so it was entirely within the court’s discretion to entertain the motion. In addition, Julia and Judy argued, the defendant is not a residential health care facility, so PHL 2801-d is not applicable. In addition, the plaintiff had not pled any facts to support a punitive claim and there could be no dispute that the language was prejudicial, and an order striking prejudicial language from pleadings is not appealable and the plaintiff had not sought leave to appeal. The First Department agreed that the order was not appealable but sua sponte granted the plaintiff leave to appeal – only to then agree with all of our other points and affirm.   

Paul Karp (Partner-New York, NY) and Francis Howell (Associate-White Plains, NY) defended a hospital, treating neurosurgeon, and treating neuro-intensivist (an internationally recognized expert in the field of Neuro Critical Care Medicine) in a case venued in Westchester County Supreme Court that involved claims of pain and suffering as well as wrongful death after the decedent suffered an intracerebral hemorrhage. The plaintiff claimed that the decedent was suffering from life-threatening intracranial pressure, which put her in danger of an imminent brain stem herniation, and that surgery should have been performed to place an extra-ventricular drain and intracranial pressure monitor. Paul was able to prove through his witnesses that the decedent had significant preexisting cerebral atrophy with enlarged Sulci, which provided the room within her brain to accommodate the edema caused by her severe stroke. Paul’s witnesses, using the evidence graphics we created, were able to definitively show that even without the placement of the intracranial pressure monitor, the pressure within her skull was stable and she was never in danger of developing the life-threatening brainstem herniation. Therefore, no surgical intervention, nor the administration of last-ditch effort pharmacological interventions (Hypertonic Saline or Mannitol) to reduce brain edema were warranted. Frank filed a motion in limine to preclude the plaintiff from offering testimony analogous to that of an expert and the motion was granted by the court. After a week of trial, the co-defendant, a skilled nursing center, settled out with the plaintiff. Rather than continue the case, the plaintiff discontinued the action as to the hospital and the two named physicians. 

Allison Graffeo (Partner-New York, NY) prevailed in a matter involving allegations of negligent bariatric surgery performed on a middle-aged woman at a major New York hospital against the hospital and multiple individual providers. The medically diagnosed obese patient, who had undergone prior unsuccessful sleeve gastrectomy, presented for a conversion of her gastric sleeve to a Roux-en-Y bypass. Post-operatively, the patient experienced a gastric leak, resulting in sepsis and additional hospitalizations and surgical procedures. The plaintiff claimed that the surgery was contraindicated, that the leak was the result of improper surgical technique, and that the defendants failed to timely diagnose the leak. Allison moved for summary judgment on both liability and causation, with the assistance of an expert bariatric surgeon affidavit. She explained the complex anatomical, medical, and surgical concepts underlying the care at issue in a manner understood by lay persons and next demonstrated the absence of any factual dispute concerning the propriety of the care. Allison also addressed the lack of causation. Upon receipt of the motion, plaintiff’s counsel (a prominent medical malpractice law firm) apparently could not oppose the motion. Counsel moved to be relieved as attorney of record. That motion was eventually granted and the plaintiff was unable to retain another attorney. The court dismissed the matter. 

Jeremy Buchalski (Partner-New York, NY) defended common sense when an employee of our client's insured alleged that a wall of bricks fell on him while he was working. When he reported this incident, his employer smelled alcohol on his breath and he was later found sleeping in the building by a security guard. His employment was terminated the next day after he admitted that he broke into the company's temporary shed. When the plaintiff was seen at the hospital he reported that a single brick fell and struck him on the face, right wrist, and left hand. Two weeks later he filed a claim alleging injuries to his head, neck, back, both shoulders, right hand, right wrist, both hips, and his face. After several false starts, he finally provided testimony that he was rendered unconscious and carried down two floors after his accident. Not surprisingly, the judge found that his testimony lacked credibility and dismissed the claim.

Nancy Wright (Partner-New York, NY) and Jenna Agatep (Associate-New York, NY) obtained four “no probable cause” findings and case dismissals from the New York State Division of Human Rights (DHR) for the firm’s education clients: two colleges, a charter school, and a private school.

• In the first case, a security guard sued the firm’s college client for retaliation after he was removed from campus to another location, for allegedly reporting sexual harassment involving two other security guards. Nancy and Jenna argued that (1) the college was not the complainant’s employer as he was hired and placed by a security firm at the college; (2) the college, upon receiving complainant’s actual employer’s investigative notes regarding the reported incident, uncovered that complainant and one of the security guards had participated in the very sexual harassment incident complainant raised, and requested that complainant’s employer remove the guards from its premises due to the investigation findings. The employer complied and, it appeared, later terminated complainant’s employment. In its Determination and Order After Investigation, the DHR agreed with the college’s arguments and dismissed the complaint for lack of probable cause to support discrimination. 
   
• In the second case, an applicant for a teaching position sued the firm’s charter school client for age discrimination and retaliation after she was not selected for the position. Nancy and Jenna argued that (1) complainant did not proffer any evidence connecting her age or opposition to discrimination to the school’s hiring decision; (2) complainant was not qualified for the position, having performed poorly during her in-person interview and mock presentation, giving the school a legitimate business reason for not selecting her; and (3) the candidate actually selected for the role was in his 50s – the same protected age group as the complainant thereby negating any inference of age discrimination. The DHR once again agreed and dismissed the complaint for lack of probable cause. 
   
• In the third case, a prospective male applicant to a film festival hosted by an all-women’s college sued the program for gender discrimination. The complainant alleged that the program discriminates against male screenwriters and filmmakers by not allowing them to apply based on the language on their website. Nancy and Jenna argued that (1) the festival does not prohibit anyone from applying based on their gender and, more importantly, (2) the complainant had not even applied to the program and therefore could not have been denied entry. After investigation, the DHR agreed and dismissed the complaint. 
   
• In the final case, an attorney candidate for a part-time swim instructor position with minor students sued the firm’s private school client for discrimination based on his arrest/conviction record. Complainant was offered conditional employment but after a background check returned certain convictions including sexual offenses, the client rescinded its offer pending further investigation. Once the school concluded its investigation and found the results were erroneous, it reinstated the complainant’s offer. However, the complainant was irate and refused to accept the offer, voiced his indignation, demanded apologies from the head of the school, and stated his intent to file suit. Nancy and Jenna argued, and the DHR agreed, that the school had a legitimate non-discriminatory business reason for rescinding complainant’s job offer; the rescindment was ultimately voided in a matter of days and the offer was then reinstated and refused. As a result, the DHR dismissed the case finding no probable cause to support discrimination.

Nancy Wright (Partner-New York, NY) and Amy Largacha Cedeno (Associate-New York, NY) defended a prominent private research corporation and three individually named employees in a lawsuit filed by a former employee who alleged discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation under state and city discrimination laws. In 2024, Nancy and Amy successfully secured dismissal of the federal claims filed in the Southern District Court of New York, which opted not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state and city claims. As a result, the plaintiff re-filed a complaint alleging the state and city claims in state court, Queens County. Nancy and Amy filed a motion for pre-answer dismissal on the grounds that all the claims were legally insufficient. They argued that the plaintiff failed to plead any actions by the defendants based on discriminatory animus regarding the plaintiff’s protected status. Further, they argued that the plaintiff had failed to establish the necessary elements for a retaliation claim as she had failed to plead any participation in a protected activity – a threshold requirement. The court agreed and dismissed the claims against all defendants in their entirety.

Nicholas J. Kauffman (Partner-New York, NY) and Jordan Meisner (Of Counsel-New York, NY) obtained the plaintiff’s voluntary discontinuance (with prejudice) of its construction product liability subrogation action that sought damages against our client rubber company of approximately $7 million plus interest after they aggressively filed a post-answer motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to CPLR §3211(a)(7) and (8) for lack of personal jurisdiction arising from improper service of process that failed to comply with New York’s BCL §306(b)(1). The plaintiff’s alleged damages arose from a leak in a hot water riser at a New York City hotel that contained our client’s elastomeric expansion joint. Nick and Jordan conducted significant due diligence and investigation and were able to proffer evidence to argue that our client was never served with the complaint. They argued that although the body of the complaint referred to our client, the caption named a non-related entity and the plaintiff could only prove service on that entity via the New York Secretary of State. Jordan’s research was critical as he found a recently decided Second Department case that was directly on point and persuaded the plaintiff that it did not have a good-faith basis to continue its action after our motion was fully briefed and submitted.