Representative Cases

The firm has been involved in a number of major matters in which it has successfully established and vindicated significant legal principles in reported decisions.  The following cases exemplify the firm’s breadth and depth of experience in complicated civil litigation.

Jones v. Trump, 1997 WL 277375 (S.D.N.Y. 1997)

Representation of Donald Trump in a federal lawsuit brought under various legal theories by a publicist who had been convicted of a felony in the state courts. The district court's key decision, dismissing all claims with prejudice, denying leave to replead, and directing the clerk of the court to close the case, made it clear that certain plaintiffs are "libel-proof" because of their own actions and the circumstances surrounding them.

S.M. v. Clash, 558 Fed. Appx. 44, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 4377, 2014 WL 903526 (2d Cir. 2014), aff’g Singleton v. Clash, 951 F. Supp. 2d 578, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92088, 2013 WL 3285096 (S.D.N.Y. 2013); Stephens v. Clash, 796 F.3d 281, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 13643 (3d Cir. Aug. 5, 2015)

Representation of a person in suits filed by several men who claimed that they had been victims of violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2422 and 2423 years earlier, when they were minors. Every judge at every level of every court ruled that regardless of the applicability of any discovery rule, all of the claims of all of the plaintiffs were time-barred and were dismissed.

Veneruso v. Mount Vernon Neighborhood Health Center, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 8449, 2014 WL 1776011 (2d Cir. May 6, 2014), aff’g 933 F. Supp.2d 613, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40522, 2013 WL 1187445 (S.D.N.Y. 2013)

Representation of Community Choice Health Plan of Westchester, Inc., which sued one of its sponsors in state court for statutory violations and related common law claims arising out of the withdrawal of almost $1 million of the Plaintiff’s funds. The Defendant tried to “make a federal case out of it” by removing it to federal court on the basis of claims of the existence of federal funds, federal questions, federal agency, and sovereign immunity. The district court rejected all such claims and the Second Circuit unanimously affirmed, resulting in a remand of the case back to state court.

Roundabout Theatre Company, Inc. v. Continental Casualty Company, and J & H Marsh & McLennan, Inc., 775 N.Y.S.2d 857 (1st Dep't 2004)

Representation of J & H Marsh & McLennan, Inc., a major insurance broker accused of misconduct in connection with responding to a client's insurance needs. The unanimous Appellate Division decision, affirming the trial court's grant of summary judgment dismissing the complaint, held that the broker's express disclaimer of responsibility until it could meet with the client to properly assess the client's needs, together with the fact that no such meeting was held, resulted in no liability as a matter of law.

Purgess v. Sharrock and Hospital for Special Surgery, 33 F. 3d 134 (2d Cir. 1994)

Representation of Jan Purgess, a doctor terminated and defamed by accusations of malpractice and misconduct.  Following six years of litigation before the New York State Public Health Council and in federal court, the case resulted in the largest jury verdict for defamation of a doctor ever sustained in New York.  The unanimous circuit court decision affirming the $5.1 million total damage award established that neither mandatory reporting requirements nor statutory privileges would insulate hospitals or their department heads from the consequences of actions taken in bad faith.

  • New York Law Journal, August 22, 1994, p. 1, col. 1; Medical Economics, April 10, 1995, pp. 113-119.

Gardiner International, Inc., and E. Nicholas P. Gardiner v. J.W. Townsend and Company, Inc. and John W. Townsend, Index No. 602002/03 (Sup CT NY Cty 2008)

Representation of Gardiner International, Inc. and its principal Nicholas Gardiner, executive search consultants who were entitled to $600,000 as their 75% share of an $800,000 placement fee on the basis of their having initiated the search that led to the fee.  The defendants, who were partners of the Gardiner parties, obtained and withheld the entire fee on the basis of their claim that they had been involved in the placement.  A unanimous state court jury awarded the Gardiner parties their full $600,000 share, determining that entitlement to the 75% share was based on initiation, not placement.

The firm has also handled a number of complex matters for individuals and companies, often spanning several years and involving institutional employers and multiple state and federal courts and regulatory agencies.

 

LexisNexis Martindale-HubbellAttorney Advertising. This web site is designed for general information only. The information presented at this site should not be construed to be formal legal advice nor the formation of a lawyer/client relationship. No lawyer/client relationship will be established unless the Firm expressly agrees to provide representation. [ Site Map ]