REPORTED CASES
printable version of this page
HOME
EXPERIENCE
PRACTICE AREAS
REPORTED CASES
ARTICLES
BOOK REVIEWS
<br> <blockquote class="body"> <p> <i>Atlas Turner, Inc. v. Hamilton, 120 S.Ct. 2691 (2000)</i> successfully opposed petition for writ of certiorari, petitioner claiming that the Second Circuit applied an incorrect standard of review in appeal concerning defense of lack of in personam jurisdiction</p> <p> <i>Worthington Corp. v. Ronsini, 120 S.Ct. 1419 (2000)</i> successfully opposed petition for writ of certiorari, petitioner claiming a conflict among the courts regarding the standard governing application of the government contractor defense in failure to warn cases</p> <p> <i>Consorti v. Armstrong World Indus., 518 U.S. 1031, 116 S.Ct. 2576 (1996) (no reported opinion)</i> won vacation of Second Circuit ruling concerning the interplay of state and federal law in appellate review of jury verdicts for excessiveness, in toxic tort personal injury litigation, and ultimate entry of multi-million dollar judgment</p> <p><i>Harris v. United States, No. 04-3520, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 19058 (6th Cir. Sept. 2, 2005)</i> won unanimous ruling that District Court had incorrectly dismissed plaintiff's <i>Bivens</i> claims, with regard to application of Ohio savings statute, although divided Court affirmed on other grounds with respect to plaintiff's Federal Tort Claims Act action</p> <p> <i>Caruolo v. John Crane, Inc., 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 22316 (2d Cir. Aug. 31, 2000)</i> regarding defendant’s appeal in this multimillion dollar toxic tort action, won affirmance on issues of propriety of expert testimony, Federal Rules of Evidence 803(6), 803(16), 903(18) and 804(b)(1), state-of-the art evidence, jury instructions and choice of law ruling on the question of damages; regarding plaintiffs’ cross-appeal, won reversal of court’s choice-of-law ruling concerning prejudgment interest</p> <p> <i>Hamilton v. Atlas Turner, Inc., 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 30358 (2d Cir. Nov. 22, 1999)</i> won reversal of District Court’s ruling that Canadian asbestos manufacturer had not waived its defense of lack of in personam jurisdiction by its participation before the Multidistrict Litigation Panel prior to trial</p> <p> <i>Monaghan v. SZS 33 Assoc., 73 F.3d 1276 (2d Cir. 1996)</i> won affirmance of District Court’s ruling concerning standard by which settlement is deemed binding under New York law -- in action brought by victim of violent crime committed on defendant’s premises</p> <p> <i>Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. v. Celotex Corp., 56 F.3d 343 (2d Cir. 1995)</i> won reversal, in property damage lawsuit, of District Court’s ruling that doctrine of res judicata barred plaintiff’s action against asbestos manufacturer where plaintiff’s predecessor-in-interest abandoned lawsuit with prejudice, but where plaintiff at the time held option to purchase substantially below market value</p> <p> <i>In re Joint Eastern & Southern District Asbestos Litig. -- Maiorana v. United States Mineral Products Co., 52 F.3d 1124 (2d Cir. 1995)</i> won reversal of District Court ruling and reinstatement of multi-million dollar jury verdict, on issue of whether epidemiological evidence sufficiently established causal relation between asbestos exposure and colon cancer, given standard for evaluating proffered expert testimony under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786 (1993)</p> <p> <i>In re Joint Eastern & Southern District Asbestos Litig. -- Bauman v. Keene Corp., 18 F.3d 126 (2d Cir. 1994)</i> representing consortium of mass tort plaintiffs and liaison to several law firms, won affirmance of District Court’s method of calculating setoffs for pre-verdict settlements, although Second Circuit modified method of computing the interplay between settlement amounts and prejudgment interest in wrongful death actions</p> <p> <i>In re Joint Eastern & Southern District Asbestos Litig. -- Keene Corp. v. Fiorelli, 14 F.3d 726 (2d Cir. 1993)</i> won vacation of order issuing preliminary injunction and certifying mandatory limited-fund class of all persons with present or future asbestos claims against Keene Corporation</p> <p> <i>Bayless v. Dresser Indus., 12 F.3d 209 (5th Cir. 1993) (no reported opinion)</i> won affirmance of judgment entered on jury verdict determining that defendant had “willfully” violated ADEA by terminating plaintiff’s employment for age discriminatory reasons, based on U.S. Supreme Court construction of “willful”</p> <p> <i>In re Repetitive Stress Injury Litig. -- Debruyne v. National Semiconductor Corp., 11 F.3d 368 (2d Cir. 1993)</i> lost in vacation of District Court’s consolidation of forty-four cases asserting repetitive stress injury claims, appeal raising issues of appellate jurisdiction over nonfinal “collateral orders,” implied petitions for a writ of mandamus, and the standard for evaluating the consolidation of mass tort claims</p> <p> <i>In re Brooklyn Navy Yard Asbestos Litig. (Joint Eastern and Southern Dist. Asbestos Litig.), 971 F.2d 831 (2d Cir. 1992)</i> won affirmance of multi-million dollar judgment, entered on more than sixty consolidated verdicts, on issues, inter alia, of (1) causation involving injuries manifesting decades after exposure, (2) the defense of intervening negligence, (3) the interpretation of New York’s General Obligations Law governing the effect of settlements on the judgment-molding process, (4) the status of certain bankrupt parties and its impact on set-off procedures, (5) the interplay between New York’s General Obligations Law and its statutory provision creating limits to and set-offs against joint liability under certain circumstances, and (6) the interplay between New York’s General Obligations Law and its Wrongful Death statute</p> <p> <i>Kreppein v. Celotex Corp., 969 F.2d 1424 (2d Cir. 1992)</i> won affirmance of judgment in toxic tort wrongful death action on issues of sufficiency of product nexus proofs and New York’s statutory scheme for apportioning liability among tortfeasors</p> <p> <i>O’Brien v. National Gypsum Co., 944 F.2d 69 (2d Cir. 1991)</i> won affirmance of multi-million dollar judgment entered in wrongful death action on issue of nature and quantum of evidence required to prove exposure to a particular manufacturer’s toxic products</p> <p><i>B & S Transport, Inc. v. United States, No. 05-423C, 2005 U.S. Claims LEXIS 269 (U.S. Ct. Fed. Claims Sept. 12, 2005) </i>bringing bid protest on behalf of government contractor supplying Army with pneumatic tires, administrative record failed to establish conclusively that awardee lacked sufficient capacity to fulfill contract, or that winning bidder's component part substitution, albeit unauthorized, would impair performance</p> <p> <i>Latino Officers Ass’n N.Y. v. City of New York, 209 F.R.D. 79 (S.D.N.Y. 2002)</i> won motion to certify the class of all Latino and African-American individuals who had been, were, or would be employed by the police department as uniformed officers, including civilians who performed the same employment functions as uniformed officers, who had been or would be subjected to discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin in the form of a hostile work environment, disparate disciplinary treatment, and retaliation for the exercise of their rights</p> <p> <i>In re Joint Eastern&Southern District Asbestos Litig. -- All Brooklyn Naval Shipyard Cases, 772 F. Supp. 1380 (E.&S.D.N.Y. 1991)</i> won a number of rulings by the Honorable Jack B. Weinstein on issues of (1) the consolidation of approximately seventy cases over three trial phases, (2) the authority of intermediate state court pronouncements under the Erie doctrine, when these conflict with United States Court of Appeals’ rulings (3) the method of calculating setoffs under New York’s General Obligations Law § 15-108, (4) the status of bankrupt parties and their impact on the judgment-molding process, (5) the interplay between New York’s General Obligations Law and its statutory provision creating limits to and set-offs against joint liability under certain circumstances, and (6) the interplay between New York’s General Obligations Law and its Wrongful Death statute</p> <p><i>Engle v. Liggett Group, Inc., 873 So.2d 1222 (Fla. 2004)</i> assisting local counsel, won review of intermediate appellate court ruling that reversed $200 billion class action judgment in favor of tobacco product liability plaintiffs</p> <p><i>Edmond v. International Bus. Mach. Corp., 91 N.Y.2d 949, 671 N.Y.S.2d 437 (1998)</i> won reversal of Appellate Division ruling regarding significance of pleading aggravation of preexisting injury upon New York statute of limitation analysis</p> <p> <i>Blanco v. American Tel.&Tel. Co., 90 N.Y.2d 757, 666 N.Y.S.2d 536 (1997)</i> won modification and remand of Appellate Division ruling that construed New York’s traditional statute of limitations to view repetitive stress injury claims and toxic tort claims in an analogous manner, the Court of Appeals carving out a new construction of the statute of limitations appropriate to the unique issues presented by repetitive stress computer keyboard injuries</p> <p> <i>In re New York County Asbestos Litig.: Brooklyn Naval Shipyard Cases -- Dudick v. Keene Corp., 82 N.Y.2d 821, 605 N.Y.S.2d 3 (1993)</i> won affirmance of newly recognized method for calculating off-sets under General Obligations Law § 15-108 in multiple defendant mass tort actions</p> <p> <i>People v. Nickerson, 75 N.Y.2d 883, 554 N.Y.S.2d 473 (1990)</i> lost in affirmance on issue of state’s failure to comply with CPL 710.30, regarding notice of intent to present inculpatory evidence in criminal trial, although affirmance concerned preservation of issue</p> <p> <i>Root v. Eastern Refractories, Inc., CA 04-01412, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16302 (4th Dep't Dec. 30, 2004) </i>won reversal of grant of summary judgment motion in products liability action, the trial court having found dispositive the testimony of the defendant's president denying that company had supplied any asbestos-containing product to plaintiff's Syracuse University job site</p> <p><i>Ruffing v. Union Carbide Corp., 764 N.Y.S.2d 462 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't, Sept. 22, 2003)</i> in case involving horrific birth defects resulting from parental exposure to toxic semiconductor workplace chemicals, won reversal of ruling which precluded the infant plaintiff’s fraud claims against defendant IBM</p> <p><i>Tronlone v. Lac d’Aminate du Quebec, Ltd, 747 N.Y.S.2d 79 (App. Div. 1st Dept., Sept. 17, 2002)</i> won reversal of trial court’s summary judgment in favor of defendant, on issue of the sufficiency of plaintiff’s identification of the defendant’s toxic product</p> <p> <i>Villoch v. Lindgren, 269 A.D. 2d 271, 703 N.Y.S.2d 131 (1st Dep’t Feb. 22, 2000)</i> won reversal of trial court’s ruling that New York’s “danger invites rescue” doctrine, formulated by Judge Cardozo in Wagner v. International Railway Co., did not apply to the facts of this highway accident case</p> <p> <i>Cerreta v. New Jersey Transit Corp., 267 A.D. 2d 128, 700 N.Y.S.2d 11 (1st Dep’t 1999)</i> won reversal of summary judgment ruling on issue of duty of common carrier toward passenger attempting to board moving train</p> <p> <i>In re New York City Asbestos Litig. -- Ronsini v. Garlock, Inc., 256 A.D.2d 250, 683 N.Y.S.2d 39 (1st Dep’t 1998)</i> won affirmances of multi-million dollar judgments in three consolidated appeals in mesothelioma asbestos cases, on product liability issues of, inter alia, (1) manufacturer’s liability for replacement parts, (2) New York’s substantial modification defense, (3) the government contractor defense, (4) apportionment of fault under New York’s statutory joint and several liability scheme, (5) claimed verdict sheets error, and (6) the sufficiency of product identification proofs when multiple entities bear similar company names</p> <p> <i>Dollas v. W.R. Grace and Co., 225 A.D.2d 319, 639 N.Y.S.2d 323 (1st Dep’t 1996)</i> won reversal, in mass tort wrongful death action, on issues of standard for taking judicial notice, standard for evaluating testimony of a litigant, and sufficiency of product identification proofs</p> <p> <i>Aikman v. Atex, Inc., 224 A.D.2d 180, 637 N.Y.S.2d 123 (1st Dep’t 1996)</i> won affirmance of ruling establishing innovative method for consolidating various repetititive stress injury cases for trial, involving the simultaneous impanelment of separate juries, and upholding the consolidation under the guidelines suggested by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit</p> <p> <i>In re New York County Data Entry Worker Product Liability Litig. -- Hulse v. A.B. Dick Co., 222 A.D.2d 381, 635 N.Y.S.2d 641 (1st Dep’t 1995)</i> won affirmance of ruling granting plaintiffs’ motion for a protective order against preverdict disclosure to nonsettling defendants of materials relating to settlement agreements between plaintiffs and settling defendants</p> <p> <i>Cochrane v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 219 A.D.2d 557, 631 N.Y.S.2d 358 (1st Dep’t 1995)</i> won reversal in toxic tort action on issue of standard for evaluating moment of “discovery of injury” for purposes of New York’s toxic tort statute of limitations</p> <p> <i>Lloyd v. W.R. Grace&Co.-Conn., 215 A.D.2d 177, 626 N.Y.S.2d 147 (1st Dep’t 1995)</i> won affirmance of trial court ruling regarding sufficiency of evidentiary showing that plaintiff was exposed to manufacturer’s toxic products several decades prior to manifestation of disease</p> <p> <i>Polokoff v. Palmer, 190 A.D.2d 897, 593 N.Y.S.2d 129 (3d Dep’t 1993)</i> won reversal in medical malpractice action on issue concerning continuous treatment exception to statute of limitations</p> <p> <i>People v. Bellini, 162 A.D.2d 693, 557 N.Y.S.2d 407 (2d Dep’t 1990)</i> lost in affirmance of murder conviction on issues, inter alia, of whether trial court improperly curtailed expert psychologist’s response to hypothetical questions, whether court erred in charging the jury on the “duty to retreat”</p> <p> <i>People v. Miranda, 151 A.D.2d 321, 543 N.Y.S.2d 904 (1st Dep’t 1989)</i> won modification of judgment and dismissal of charge of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree </p> </blockquote> <br>
