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.

Joshua Cash (Partner-New York, NY) and Mark Ledwin (Partner-White Plains, NY) commenced an action in 2023 on behalf of the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) against the ex-CEO of a Credit Union, under New York’s Faithless Servant Doctrine. The NCUA argued that the ex-CEO should forfeit $7,323,557 in compensation and a $1.5 million collateral assignment split-dollar insurance policy because of his criminal convictions, alleged financial improprieties, and policy violations. The ex-CEO’s misconduct began during the height of the taxicab industry and ultimately led to his conviction in 2021, after the Credit Union was liquidated by the NCUA. As a result of the criminal trial, the ex-CEO was sentenced to 46 months in prison and was ordered to pay $2 million in restitution (he currently remains incarcerated in Otisville, NY). The improprieties included accepting illegal gratuities from taxi medallion owners and brokers, approving tens of millions of dollars in the Credit Union’s loans to its detriment, and accepting luxury vacations and gifts without the approval of the Credit Union’s board.

Judge Nina R. Morrison of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York approved the final judgment based on the Federal Magistrate’s report and recommendation after the NCUA was successful on its motion for partial summary judgment on liability. The final money judgment amounts to $7,323,557.15, which is the total amount of the ex-CEO’s salary from February 10, 2011, until his termination of employment in 2016 (and provides for an equitable lien on the ex-CEO’s interest in his life insurance policy, up to the amount of the money judgment). Together with an early settlement obtained from the Credit Union’s ex-General Counsel for nearly $1 million, the NCUA stands to recover more than $8 million.

Joshua Cash (Partner-New York, NY) and David Santana (Associate-New York, NY) secured a unanimous defense verdict in Kings County Supreme Court on behalf of New York City’s only casino in alleged claims of false imprisonment, assault, and battery perpetrated by the security staff. The plaintiff demanded $150,000 for the indignity of having been detained for 15 minutes and 18 seconds and submitted to unsubstantiated threats and assault. The plaintiff was abusing the casino’s rewards program to capitalize on the “free play” feature by using rewards cards belonging to other individuals, insisting he had permission to use the cards, but could not tell the jury who they were or where he got the cards. The casino is operated by a gaming agent for the State of New York’s Lottery Division (which owns and benefits from the revenue from the casino). The gaming agent is always sued as a private actor possessor and operator of the casino. Under the NY State Gaming Commission Rules and Regulations, the gaming agent is authorized to exclude anyone deemed to be engaging in conduct detrimental to the interests of the casino, and to reasonably detain that person to duly process the exclusion. The plaintiff received a lifetime ban and exclusion as a result of his egregious conduct and was detained incident to the exclusion process. The jury was presented with five questions in the verdict sheet regarding the gaming agent’s conduct, all five of which needed to be answered in favor of the agent for it to prevail. The jury deliberated for approximately 22 minutes to answer these five questions against the plaintiff.

Noelle Robinson (Of Counsel-White Plains, NY) and New York partners Guy Levasseur and Thomas Comer defended a NY county, transit operators, and bus driver in a personal injury case with a potential value in excess of $5 million. The plaintiff alleged a fall on a transit bus, from which he initially claimed cervical, lumbar, and right knee complaints treated with injections, but later claimed a traumatic brain injury and cognitive impairments, as well as a permanent inability to work. The plaintiff refused to settle, and the case was set to go to trial in January. Noelle filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff was not able to establish that the braking of the bus was unusual or violent. In its Decision and Order, the court found it persuasive that even in his inconsistent testimony, plaintiff admitted that the bus was “moving very slowly” when the alleged incident occurred. The driver confirmed at deposition that he slowed upon observing the brake lights of the vehicle in front of the bus, and that the passenger reported at the time that he did not need medical attention. The decision determined that our clients were entitled to judgment as a matter of law in that the bus was not caused to move in an unusual or violent manner, agreeing that the plaintiff provided no objective evidence of any movement of the bus other than “the jerks and jolts commonly experienced in city bus travel,” despite the plaintiff’s disclosure of an expert with decades of experience, to assert that the bus violated national standards for “jerk rates,” and that the plaintiff raised no triable issue of fact.

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.

Larry Lum (Partner-New York) and Rachel Davis (Of Counsel-White Plains) secured a defense verdict in the Supreme Court of New York, Nassau County, on behalf of Wilson Elser’s client, a major New York Health Care System. The plaintiff in this case claimed she slipped and fell in a bathroom owned by our client, alleging the floor had just been mopped by our client’s employee and was improperly safeguarded while still wet. She further claimed that following the incident, the employee admitted fault, and that other staff she interacted with thereafter acknowledged the floor was wet, although none of these alleged witnesses were produced at trial. 

Larry and Rachel presented the employee who would have mopped the floor around the time of the alleged incident – an 87-year-old environmental services worker with more than 50 years of experience, who denied knowledge of the incident or making any admission. He testified to his strict safety protocol, which included barricading the door with a pole to prevent it from being opened and personally ensuring the floor was dry before moving on to the next area. In their summation, Larry and Rachel stressed our client’s credibility, the plaintiff’s lack of witnesses to support her claim, and inconsistencies in her account (e.g., no recollection of having wet clothing or smelling cleaning products). The jury deliberated just 15 minutes before returning a unanimous defense verdict.
 

Nancy V. Wright (Partner-New York, NY), Saige Subick (Of Counsel-New York, NY), and Michael Colgan (Associate-New York, NY) secured a complete victory for our client, a public college under the State University of New York, in New York City. In a hard-fought, multi-witness disciplinary proceeding arbitrated under N.Y. Education Law § 2587 and the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), against the employee’s union. Our client brought this action against an IT analyst, who had been with the client since 2007, who repeatedly refused to perform assigned tasks, engaged in loud and argumentative behavior in the workplace, consistently abused the time and attendance policy, and, most seriously, made a direct threat of gun violence against a supervisor following the denial of a work-from-home request. The team presented extensive evidence and multiple witness testimony demonstrating a pattern of performance deficiencies and support of the gross misconduct and insubordination charges. The team organized five years of performance documentation into an exhibit outlining that the employee had been counseled and submitted a concise, fact-driven 40-page post-hearing summation brief that, among other arguments, showed the threat of violence as per se terminable misconduct, rendering all other charges surplusage. After a four-day evidentiary hearing spread across five months, the Hearing Officer issued a Report & Recommendation that agreed with the Wilson Elser team on virtually all points. The arbitrator found “gross misconduct” and “just cause” for termination under § 2587 and Article 28.28 of the CBA. The Union’s demand for reinstatement with back pay was denied in its entirety. 

Joseph Francoeur (Partner-New York, NY) achieved early dismissal of a legal malpractice claim filed against a Florida attorney who represented a lessor in lease negotiations for a property in New Jersey. The plaintiff, the non-client lessee, alleged that the attorney failed to advise of the terms of an accompanying easement at the time of the lease negotiations, and filed a lawsuit against the attorney and various other parties, including its own attorney, in New Jersey State Court. Joe filed a pre-answer motion to dismiss, arguing that as the attorney did not represent the plaintiff in the lease negotiations there is no duty owed to the non-client. The plaintiff opposed the motion claiming reliance on the attorney’s representations regarding the easement terms and further claimed that the attorney engaged in the unauthorized practice of law within New Jersey. Joe responded by asserting that at the time of the lease negotiations plaintiff and its attorney had actual knowledge of the terms of the easement and further that there was no unauthorized practice of law as the attorney worked with local New Jersey counsel throughout the negotiations and subsequent drafting of the lease. The court agreed with each of Joe’s arguments finding that the attorney does not owe any duty to the non-client plaintiff and that the attorney did not engage in the unauthorized practice of law. Accordingly, the court granted Joe’s motion dismissing the complaint. 

Joseph Francoeur (Partner-New York, NY), Otis Felder (Partner-Los Angeles, CA), and Ronald Weiner (Of Counsel-New York, NY) obtained dismissal in defending a local Hawai‘i attorney in a significant ruling issued by the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawai‘i. In this high-profile lawsuit, under litigation since 2018, brought by the plaintiff against a large Medical Center and several other Hawai‘i-based medical providers, donor organizations, and attorneys, the court dismissed the action, except for a potential claim against the plaintiff’s own counsel. The case stemmed from the 2016 death of the plaintiff’s daughter and subsequent organ donation procedures. The court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss, ruling that all claims were barred by the statute of limitations or otherwise legally insufficient. The court also issued an order to show cause, requiring the plaintiff to provide additional information to support her malpractice claim by October 20, 2025, or face dismissal of the entire case. With this ruling, all claims against the medical providers, hospital, donor organizations, government entities, and opposing counsel are concluded. The only remaining avenue for the plaintiff is to pursue a properly supported malpractice claim against her former attorney.