Author: Brian Gibbons

WCM Welcomes A New Class Of Summer Associates

WCM’s Summer Associate program welcomes a new crop of law students for the Summer of 2023. New Jersey Jordan Davis is a 2L at Widener University Delaware Law School.  Jordan is a graduate of St. Joseph’s University with a degree in political science.  Prior to joining WCM, Jordan was a paralegal for a Philadelphia personal injury law firm. Susan Derasmo is a 3L at Rutgers Law School and a member of Rutgers’ Computer and Technology Law Journal.  Susan is a graduate of Elon University with a degree in policy studies and strategic communications and earned a masters in higher and postsecondary education from Teachers College, Columbia University.  Prior to joining WCM, Susan interned as a judicial clerk in Monmouth County Superior Court and before that was a legal research assistant in the Office of General Counsel, Teachers College, Columbia University. Matthew Staniloff is a 3L at Rutgers Law School and a member of the Entertainment, Arts, and Sports Law Society.  Matthew is a graduate of the University of Victoria in British Columbia, Canada with a degree in psychology.  Prior to joining WCM, Matthew participated in a variety of internships, including a legal intern with a New York personal injury law firm and a judicial intern with the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey.  Matthew is an avid hockey fan, having worked part time for the Victoria Grizzlies while in undergrad. New York Jordan Joachim-James is a 3L at Fordham University School of Law and a member of the Environmental Law Review.  Jordan is a graduate of Fordham University with a degree in sociology.  Prior to joining WCM, Jordan interned with Manhattan Legal Services, Bronx Legal Services and with the Industrial Court of Trinidad and Tobago in Port of Spain, Trinidad. Jacob Popeck is a 3L at Fordham University School of Law and a member of the International Law Journal.  Jacob is a graduate of SUNY Binghamton with a degree in political science and philosophy, politics, and law.  Prior to joining WCM, Jacob participated in a legal extern with Housing Conservation Coordinators and interned with Travelers, Broome County District Attorney Office, and a well-known New York asbestos firm.  Jacob is an avid Rangers and Yankees fan. Seamus Rooney is a 3L at Fordham University School of Law and a member of the Environmental Law Review.  Seamus is a graduate of Rowan University with a degree in philosophy and world religions.  Prior to joining WCM, Seamus was a legal fellow for a Philadelphia law firm and interned with the Gloucester County Clerk’s Office and Gloucester County Surrogate Court in New Jersey. Corey Weisfeld is a 3L at Brooklyn  Law School and a member of the Entertainment and Sports Law Society.  Corey is a graduate of SUNY Binghamton with a degree in philosophy, politics, and law.  Prior to joining WCM, Corey worked as a paralegal for a personal injury law firm on Long Island and interned with the Nassau County District Attorney’s Office. Pennsylvania Allen Dejewski is a 3L at Drexel University Thomas R. Kline School of Law and a Law Review staff editor.  Allen is a graduate of Temple University with a degree in economics.  Prior to joining WCM, Allen was a judicial intern with the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas.  Allen is a former football player and an Eagles enthusiast. Hannah Garber is a 2L at Temple University Beasley School of Law.  Hannah is a graduate of Arcadia University with a degree in politics, government, and law.  Prior to joining WCM, Hannah interned with the Montgomery County Public Defender’s Office and worked as a crisis counselor. Gianna Hroncich is a 3L at Drexel University Thomas R. Kline School of Law and a Law Review staff editor.  Gianna is a graduate of Lafayette College with a degree in government and law.  Prior to joining WCM, Gianna was a law clerk for a Florida law firm and paralegal at a New York law firm.  Gianna is a beam gymnast champion. Nicolas Ozorowski is a 3L at Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law and a member of the Moot Court Board.  Nicholas is a graduate of the University of Massachusetts Amherst Commonwealth Honors College with a degree in political science.  Prior to joining WCM, Nicholas interned with Fanatics and was a paralegal for a Philadelphia real estate firm.  Nicholas is a distance runner. Benjamin Salvatore is a 3L at Rutgers School of Law and a member of the Law Review.  Benjamin is a graduate of Rowan University with degrees in mathematics and political science.  Prior to joining WCM, Benjamin was a judicial extern for the USDC for the District of New Jersey and interned with Rutgers Civil Practice Clinic – Veterans Advocacy Program.Read More

Call Your Next Witness – Matthew McCann

On this episode of the Call Your Next Witness podcast, we welcome fellow attorney, Queens Native and Regis High School alum Matthew McCann.   Matt’s practice areas have varied greatly over the years, spanning white collar criminal defense, securities litigation, land use, cannabis, Special Education, and appellate practice, now at Moss & Colella, P.C. in Southfield, Michigan.  Matt’s career and practice areas have evolved and grown in ways he never would have predicted as a younger attorney.  And of course, we spent some time discussing Matt’s other “practice area” — Battle Rap –both in NYC and Detroit.  Listen here: https://lnkd.in/e8NbgmSd This may be the first ever lawyer-centric battle rap #podcast ever recorded. #wcmlaw For more information about the podcast, email Brian Gibbons.Read More

WCM Is Pleased to Welcome Two New Counsel

WCM is pleased to welcome Craig Briggs and Maurice Waller, both to the rank of counsel in our Pennsylvania office. Craig is an experienced trial attorney with expertise in personal injury defense of high-profile clientele, construction litigation, and commercial litigation in both the state and federal courts.   His practice focuses on complex, large exposure cases. Maurice is a skilled litigator with over two decades of experience in insurance defense and complex litigation that included a judicial clerkship with a Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.  His practice focuses on defense of complex general liability claims and premises liability claims.    Craig and Maurice present a strong addition and significant trial experience to WCM’s defense practice.Read More

Call Your Next Witness- Murray Singer

Read More

Wade Clark Mulcahy LLP Expands on Long Island with Addition of Steven F. Goldstein LLP

Wade Clark Mulcahy is pleased to announce the expansion of its Long Island presence with its merger with Steven F. Goldstein LLP.  In addition to Steve Goldstein, who will be Of Counsel to WCM, Partner Gina Arnedos and associate Patrick “PJ” Argento will join WCM, and current WCM Partner Brian Gibbons will serve as the managing partner of the Long Island office. They will focus primarily on liability defense, fraud investigation, and professional liability.  Arnedos, Goldstein, and Argento strengthen the firm’s robust litigation expertise. With the opening of the Long Island Office at the former site of Steven F. Goldstein LLP at 1 Old Country in Carle Place, NY, the firm will better serve its clients in Nassau and Suffolk Counties. “We are thrilled to open our Long Island Office and be able to better serve our clients,” says Bob Cosgrove, a member of Wade Clark Mulcahy Executive Committee. “Gina, Steve, and PJ are experienced trial lawyers, and we are ecstatic to have them join the firm.”   “Steve and I picked a jury together a few years back and hit it off immediately – I’m excited to work with Steve, Gina and Patrick going forward,” says Brian Gibbons. Steve Goldstein has spent over three decades representing clients, including department stores, camps, gyms, rock climbing facilities, horse farms, nursery schools, youth sports organizations, construction companies, and all manner of business and individual clients. He has vast trying and appealing cases in all New York State and Federal Courts. “We are pleased to join WCM and to offer more resources to our clients, both in the greater New York City area, and in other jurisdictions where WCM has a strong presence.” Gina Arnedos is a skilled trial attorney with 35 years’ experience litigating in New York. She has amassed extensive experience in guiding clients on risk management issues and evaluating cases for settlement, motions for summary judgment, appeals, and trials. Gina has litigated premises liability cases for a multitude of clients over the years, including department stores, camps, gyms, rock climbing facilities, horse farms, nursery schools, and all manner of business and individual clients. Since graduating from Argento Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University in 2017, PJ Argento has gained experience litigating in State District Courts and Supreme Courts all over the State of New York. He began his career with the Suffolk County District Attorney’s Office in 2016, while still attending law school. Under a practice Order from the Appellate Division, Second Department, Patrick prosecuted cases as a Law Assistant in Suffolk County District Court. Argento just recently tried his first case in upstate New York. If you’d like any additional information about our new addition or the Long Island office in general, feel free to contact Brian Gibbons.Read More

Happy Holidays from Wade Clark Mulcahy

Another year in the books!    2022 saw in person litigation begin to come back in earnest (thank goodness), but looking forward, we won’t be cancelling our Teams/Zoom accounts any time soon — some degree of remote conferencing is certainly here to stay.    WCM continues to enjoy growth, in large part due to the loyalty of our friends and clients within and without the United States.   We look forward to our continued collaboration in 2023 and beyond.   And a special thanks to the support staff at our WCM offices, who keep the WCM train on its tracks every day. Please accept our Holiday E-Card, and our best wishes for a a Happy and Healthy Holiday Season!Read More

Call Your Next Witness (Cannabis Edition) — Alex Buscher of Buscher Law LLP

Read More

Call Your Next Witness – Ryan Eakes of Typhoon Farma

After a short break, the Call Your Next Witness podcast is back, with our first in a series of cannabis-related interviews.

The Cannabis Industry was taboo as recently as 10 years ago.  But now, not only is it a blossoming industry, but its becoming mainstream to the point where attorney and insurance conventions are including presentations specific to cannabis and how to insure that risk.

But how does one actually get into the commercial cannabis space, and what is the day-to-day like?  Ryan Eakes, Chief Operating Office of Typhoon Farma, a  hemp farm in western Colorado, offers some great insight into those questions through his own journey.   With a background in construction and business development — not in agriculture — Ryan jumped on an opportunity to get into the cannabis and hemp world on the ground floor.   Ryan encounters daily challenges that are truly unique to the cannabis industry, especially given the ever-changing regulatory framework he has to navigate.  Listen here, or search for Call Your Next Witness wherever you download podcasts.

Think of this interview as “Cannabis for Dummies.”  For questions about WCM’s practice in the cannabis insurance space, please contact Brian Gibbons.

Read More

Can A Verdict Render An Appeal Moot? (NY)

In a noteworthy decision, the Court of Appeals recently held that where a triable issue of fact is litigated and a final verdict reached, that issue of fact is rendered moot on pending appeal.  Meaning, if 1) a party moves for summary judgment on liability, 2) that motion is denied, 3) the movant appeals that decision, and 4) a trial verdict decides liability before the appeal is heard, that verdict becomes the law of the case, and the appeal is rendered moot.  This is a big deal. The recent decision of Bonczar v. American MultiCinema Inc., 38 N.Y.3d 1023, 1025, 188 N.E.3d 1000, reargument denied, 38 N.Y.3d 1170, 195 N.E.3d 526 (2022), presented a plaintiff who sought damages against the defendant for violating Labor Law §240(1) and moved for partial summary judgment on that claim. While the lower court granted plaintiff’s summary judgment motion, the Appellate Division reversed finding issues of fact as to whether a statutory violation occurred.  Subsequently, plaintiff’s Labor Law §240(1) was brought before a jury. At the conclusion, the jury held in favor of the defendant finding that plaintiff’s acts were in fact the sole proximate cause of his injury. The Appellate Division affirmed the jury’s verdict on appeal. Thereafter, plaintiff brought both the order denying his partial summary judgment motion and the order affirming the jury’s verdict before the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals held that pursuant to CPLR 5501(a) the denial of plaintiff’s summary judgment motion may be reviewed on appeal only if the nonfinal order necessarily affects the final judgment. In a matter of first impression, the court explained that to determine whether a nonfinal order necessarily affects the final judgment, the question is: “whether the nonfinal order necessarily removes a legal issue from the case so that there is no further opportunity during the litigation to raise the question decided by the prior non-final order.” The court explained that here, when the Appellate Division reversed the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, finding issues of fact, that nonfinal order did not remove any issues from the case; rather, it was left undecided. Instead, the parties had the opportunity to litigate those issues at trial, and in fact did so.   Therefore, the Court of Appeals held that the Appellate Division’s order denying plaintiff summary judgment did not necessarily affect the final judgment and thus, the Court of Appeals could not review it now on appeal. The decision is a big deal, because if a trial takes places while a summary judgment appeal is still pending — which can happen — the verdict trumps the appeal, and therefore.  Bonczar significantly reduces the leverage held by the appealing party in the scenario described above.    To that end, we recently attended a CAMP Conference at the 2nd Department, and the presiding judge was pressing the importance of Bonczar, to further incentivize settlement to all parties. Thanks to Gabi Scarmato for her contribution to this post.  For any questions about Bonczar, or how we expect it will be applied in the future, please contact Brian Gibbons.  Read More

Court Dismisses Defamation Suit Stemming From Negative Google Review (NY)

This past week, in DeRicco v Maidman, the First Department of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York reversed a trial court decision that denied a defendant patient’s motion to dismiss an orthodontist’s defamation claims against them.  The claims were brought by the orthodontist and his professional corporation against the patient and his parents after the parents posted an unfavorable (but anonymous) Google review. The First Department held that the review, which asserted that the orthodontist charged hidden fees, was not open during his stated business hours, and “did a horrible job” on the patient’s braces rendering the patient’s teeth “crooked and misplaced”, contained elements of both fact and opinion but was not actionable under New York law. Generally, NY courts presented with defamation suits must consider the “circumstances and [ ] the broader social context (i.e., the factual background)” to evaluate whether the message would be taken literally or figuratively by the ordinary person. Steinhilber v. Alphonse, 501 N.E.2d 550, 555 (N.Y. 1986). Here, the First Department considered the review in its overall context; for more than a decade, New York courts have noted that readers “give less credence to allegedly defamatory remarks published on the Internet than to similar remarks made in other contexts.” With this in mind, the court held that the review of the orthodontist posted by the patient’s parents would be understood by a reasonable reader to be “pure opinion” based on its anonymity and its “arguably loose, figurative, or hyperbolic tone.” Thus, the First Department ordered the trial court to dismiss the orthodontist’s complaint against the patient and his parents.   Thanks to Jason Laicha for his contribution to this post.   Please email Brian Gibbons with any questions about defamation claims and the defenses thereto.Read More