top of page

Search Results

4068 items found for ""

  • Latest News

    Latest News Button June 21, 2024 Read More Sovereign Immunity and Charter Schools Sovereign Immunity and Charter Schools Button June 21, 2024 Read More One Two Many Dwellings: Southern District of New York Holds Building Is Not Covered As “Two-Family Dwelling” Under Homeowners’ Policy One Two Many Dwellings: Southern District of New York Holds Building Is Not Covered As “Two-Family Dwelling” Under Homeowners’ Policy Button June 21, 2024 Read More And the Case Goes On… And the Case Goes On… Button June 14, 2024 Read More Reasonable Excuse and Meritorious Defense Leads to Reversal of Unopposed Summary Judgment Award Reasonable Excuse and Meritorious Defense Leads to Reversal of Unopposed Summary Judgment Award Button June 14, 2024 Read More Bare Legal Conclusions in a Complaint Not Sufficient to Survive Motion to Dismiss Bare Legal Conclusions in a Complaint Not Sufficient to Survive Motion to Dismiss Button June 14, 2024 Read More Right to Arbitrate Waived by Prior Litigation Conduct Right to Arbitrate Waived by Prior Litigation Conduct Button June 14, 2024 Read More Pennsylvania Superior Court Vacates $8,000,000 Fee Award Not Consistent with the Language of the Parties’ Agreement Pennsylvania Superior Court Vacates $8,000,000 Fee Award Not Consistent with the Language of the Parties’ Agreement Button June 7, 2024 Read More Contradicting Much? Contradicting Much? Button June 7, 2024 Read More Not Liable for Negligence, But Still Possibly Liable for Negligence? Not Liable for Negligence, But Still Possibly Liable for Negligence? Button June 7, 2024 Read More First Department Holds Insurer May Disclaim Under Construction Classification Codes First Department Holds Insurer May Disclaim Under Construction Classification Codes Button May 31, 2024 Read More Should Coverage Be Provided Under Errors and Omissions Policy For Claims Against Victims of Phishing Scams? Should Coverage Be Provided Under Errors and Omissions Policy For Claims Against Victims of Phishing Scams? Button May 31, 2024 Read More Trial Court Slip Up: A Jury Charge For The Ongoing Storm Doctrine Trial Court Slip Up: A Jury Charge For The Ongoing Storm Doctrine Button May 30, 2024 Read More Independent Medical Examinations Must Be Exhaustive, Says NY Supreme Court, to Refute 'Serious Injury' Claims Independent Medical Examinations Must Be Exhaustive, Says NY Supreme Court, to Refute 'Serious Injury' Claims Button May 24, 2024 Read More Court Holds Plaintiff’s Expert Lacks Factual Basis (… and is Inconsistent with Plaintiff’s Theory of Liability Anyway) Court Holds Plaintiff’s Expert Lacks Factual Basis (… and is Inconsistent with Plaintiff’s Theory of Liability Anyway) Button May 24, 2024 Read More A “Spouse” or Just a Spouse? A “Spouse” or Just a Spouse? Button May 24, 2024 Read More First Department Finds Texas Law Applies in Asbestos Case due to Flight Attendant’s Tenuous Connection to New York First Department Finds Texas Law Applies in Asbestos Case due to Flight Attendant’s Tenuous Connection to New York Button May 17, 2024 Read More Wade Clark Mulcahy Launches Louisiana Office with New Partner E. Alexis Bevis Wade Clark Mulcahy Launches Louisiana Office with New Partner E. Alexis Bevis Button May 16, 2024 Read More Superior Court holds Window Manufacturer Can’t Be Held Liable for Tort Damage Caused in Construction of Home Superior Court holds Window Manufacturer Can’t Be Held Liable for Tort Damage Caused in Construction of Home Button May 16, 2024 Read More The Devil is in the Details The Devil is in the Details Button May 16, 2024 Read More Failure to Memorialize Mediated Settlement in Writing Fatal to Motion to Enforce Settlement Failure to Memorialize Mediated Settlement in Writing Fatal to Motion to Enforce Settlement Button May 16, 2024 Read More Knock, Knock..Make Sure to Ask “Who’s There?” Knock, Knock..Make Sure to Ask “Who’s There?” Button May 10, 2024 Read More In New York, Timely Disclaimer Required When “Ample Grounds to Conclude that Excess Coverage Might Be Triggered” In New York, Timely Disclaimer Required When “Ample Grounds to Conclude that Excess Coverage Might Be Triggered” Button May 10, 2024 Read More Not So Fast Not So Fast Button May 10, 2024 Read More Failing to Allege a Cause of a Fall Can Cause Your Claim to Fall Flat Failing to Allege a Cause of a Fall Can Cause Your Claim to Fall Flat Button May 3, 2024 Read More Emotional Distress Does Not Constitute “Bodily Injury” Under Terms of Homeowners’ Policy, PA Supreme Court Rules Emotional Distress Does Not Constitute “Bodily Injury” Under Terms of Homeowners’ Policy, PA Supreme Court Rules Load More

  • One Two Many Dwellings: Southern District of New York Holds Building Is Not Covered As “Two-Family Dwelling” Under Homeowners’ Policy

    News One Two Many Dwellings: Southern District of New York Holds Building Is Not Covered As “Two-Family Dwelling” Under Homeowners’ Policy June 21, 2024 < Back Share to: ​ In Clyton Hall v. Mountain Valley Indemnity Co. , Mountain Valley issued a homeowners’ policy to Hall, the owner of a three-story building with one unit on each of the ground, second, and third floors. 2024 WL 2943747, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. June 10, 2024). The Policy provided coverage for damage to the “dwelling on the ‘residence premises’” identified in the Declarations. Id. The Policy’s Broad Form further defined the “residence premises” as (1) a one-family dwelling occupied by the insured; or (2) a two-family dwelling where the insured occupies at least one of the family units. Id. In 2022, a fire rendered the building uninhabitable, prompting Hall to request property damage coverage. Id. at 2. After investigation, Mountain Valley disclaimed coverage, concluding the building constituted a three-family dwelling, not a “residence premises” under the Policy. Id. Mountain Valley contended that the definition of “two-family dwelling” referred to the number of families the dwelling could structurally accommodate. Id. at 4. In turn, Hall argued that it concerned “the number of families living in the building and not the number of units.” Id. Evaluating the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment, the Court affirmed Mountain Valley’s interpretation of the Policy. First, the Court noted that Mountain Valley’s interpretation was consistent with New York jurisprudence, which established that the number of units in a building is based on the building’s structural configuration—not the number of families living therein. Id. at 5. Second, the Court concluded that the Policy’s definition of “residence premises” was unambiguous, only permitting coverage “of a dwelling with at most two family units.” Id. In contrast, the building at issue contained three family units, each with its own kitchen, bathroom, living space, and entrance. Id. at 6. Thus, each floor constituted a “self-contained unit,” rendering the entire building a three-family dwelling. Id. Finally, the Court rejected Hall’s argument that the “residence premises” should be defined under the Declaration as the building’s address, without reference to the units contained therein. Id. at *7. The Court emphasized that the Policy must be read as a whole, and the Broad Form limited the “residence premises” referenced in the Declaration to a one or two-family dwelling. Id. Clyton Hall v. Mountain Valley Indemnity Company .pdf Download PDF • 262KB Previous Next Jessica Whelan Jessica Whelan Associate +1 267 665 0877 jwhelan@wcmlaw.com Contact

  • Sovereign Immunity and Charter Schools

    News Sovereign Immunity and Charter Schools June 21, 2024 < Back Share to: ​ In a case of first impression, Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal recently held, in Soto v. Franklin Academy Foundation, Inc. , Case Number 4D2023-2108 (Fla. 4th DCA May 8, 2024), that a private school chartered by the local school board was a state agency entitled to the pre-suit protections afforded by Florida Statute § 768.28(6)(a), Florida’s sovereign immunity statute. In Soto , a charter school student was injured in a playground accident and sued. The student did not provide the school the statutory pre-suit notice required by Florida Statute § 762.28 and the trial court dismissed. On appeal, the student argued that because the school was chartered by the local school board, which in turn was chartered by the local county, and not the state, the school was not a “state agency” and, thus, was not entitled to sovereign immunity under Florida Statute § 768.28(6)(a). The appellate court disagreed, finding that under Florida law “[a]ll charter schools in Florida are public schools and shall be part of the state’s program of [public] education.” Fla. Sat. § 1002.33(1) (2018). The court also found that because schools operated by a local school board are entitled to sovereign immunity under Florida Statute § 768.28(6)(a), there is no reason to treat schools chartered by the same local school board differently. Applying this reasoning to the case at hand, the appellate court affirmed, holding that private schools chartered by a local school board were entitled to sovereign immunity under § 768.28 of the Florida Statutes. The Takeaway. In defending a claim against a private school, claim’s handlers and attorneys alike must be cognizant of the jurisdiction’s sovereign immunity laws and the application of that law to privately operated but publicly chartered schools. Soto v. Franklin Academy Foundation, Inc. .pdf Download PDF • 90KB Previous Next Chip M-P George Chip M-P George Of Counsel +1 786 636 1541 cgeorge@wcmlaw.com Contact

  • HOME | WCM Law

    Results Speak for Themselves We are litigators who think practically not abstractly. We are trial lawyers who understand coverage and coverage lawyers who try cases. We are advisors who help you manage your risk. PRACTICE AREAS Our Practice Areas OUR VISION What sets Wade Clark Mulcahy apart Wade Clark Mulcahy LLP attorneys represent clients who rely upon our success as advocates and our practical, results oriented advice and recognized expertise as trial and appellate lawyers across a broad spectrum of insurance, commercial and coverage matters. While we practice from our offices in New York City, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Long Island, our clients regularly call upon us to manage risk in jurisdictions across the country. Our growth has been driven by client referrals. ATTORNEYS Latest News

  • And the Case Goes On…

    News And the Case Goes On… June 21, 2024 < Back Share to: ​ The Superior Court of Pennsylvania recently reversed a trial court’s sua sponte dismissal of a slip and fall lawsuit. In 2014, plaintiff Kimberly Osborne was shopping inside a Boscov’s Department Store retail tent when she was caused to fall and suffered a fractured ankle and other serious injuries. Osborne v. Boscov's Inc. , No. 902 MDA 2023, 2024 WL 2153579, (Pa. Super. Ct. May 14, 2024). Osborne and her husband (“the Osbornes”) initiated a lawsuit against Boscov’s, Inc. and Boscov’s Department Store, LLC (“Boscov’s”) in June 2016 by filing a writ of summons and did not file their complaint until February 2017. Boscov’s then did not answer until March 2018, which would be the only action on the docket until February 2020 when the Prothonotary’s Office issued the first of two termination notices. Each time, however, the Osbornes filed a statement of intention to proceed Id . at *1. Following a conference on May 8, 2023, the trial court discontinued the case with prejudice for failure to prosecute the matter. The Osbornes appealed on the basis the Court did not have the power to dismiss the case sua sponte for failure to prosecute, that there were compelling reasons for the delay, and, there was no showing of prejudice to Boscov’s. On appeal, the Superior Court held the trial court did have authority to dismiss the case sua sponte for failure to prosecute. Id. at 2. However, the Superior Court could not let the dismissal stand because there had been no showing of prejudice suffered by defendants as a result of the delay. Id. at 3. To dismiss a case for failure to prosecute, a defendant must demonstrate the delay caused “actual prejudice.” Id. (citation omitted). This decision should serve as a reminder to defendants and their attorneys of the importance of timely filings and moving for dismissal when a plaintiff fails to prosecute their case. To that end, when moving for dismissal for failure to prosecute, a defendant must demonstrate that plaintiff has shown a lack of due diligence, failed to provide a lack of any compelling reason for the delay, and that the defendant has suffered actual prejudice as a result of the delay. Osborne v. Boscovs Inc .pdf Download PDF • 156KB Previous Next Brian T. Noel Brian T. Noel Counsel +1 267 331 3891 bnoel@wcmlaw.com Contact

  • Brian T. Noel

    Brian T. Noel Counsel Pennsylvania +1 267 331 3891 bnoel@wcmlaw.com Education New York Law School, J.D. Temple University, B.A. Bar Admissions New York Pennsylvania Court Admissions Eastern District of PA Southern District of NY Eastern District of NY Professional Experience Brian works on a wide variety of civil litigation, helping defend clients against general liability claims concerning property damage, premises liability, construction defects, automobile negligence, commercial disputes, and personal injury. Immediately prior to joining WCM, Brian served as a law clerk to the Hon. John M. Gallagher of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Brian previously served as an Assistant District Attorney in the New York County District Attorney’s Office, where he was assigned to the Office of the Special Narcotics Prosecutor for the City of New York. In that role he prosecuted felony narcotics crimes in all five boroughs of New York City, trying several cases to verdict. Brian was also an adjunct professor at New York Law School. Publications I'm a paragraph. Click here to add your own text and edit me. It's easy. Download

  • Team

    Filter by: Filter by: England Law Clerk Florida Long Island New Jersey Paralegal New York Pennsylvania Filter Helene E. Dalmanieras Paralegal Mark Turner Market Representative Michelle B. Gonsoulin Chief Operating Officer Rachel A. Wade Operations Manager Eileen McGlyn Paralegal Jenny Rajkowski Paralegal Professional Staff

  • Team

    Attorneys Filter by: Filter by: England Florida Associate Long Island New York New Jersey Pennsylvania Counsel Of Counsel Partner Filter Patrick J. Argento Counsel Michael A. Bono Executive Partner Maria E. Dalmanieras Partner Andrew Gibbs Partner Andrew D. Henriquez Associate Steve J. Kim Partner Jason Laicha Associate Brian T. Noel Counsel Alexander Rabhan Associate Carl J. Schaerf Partner Anand P. Tayal Associate Gina M. Arnedos Partner Nicole Y. Brown Managing Partner Thomas J. Decker Of Counsel Ishra Glasswala Associate Christina Herrera Associate Julia Klein Associate Bruce A. Magaw Of Counsel Martha Osisek Associate Peter R. Restani Partner James W. Scott Jr. Partner Domenica B. Tomasetti Associate E. Alexis Bevis Partner Georgia Coats Partner Chip M-P George Of Counsel Steven F. Goldstein Of Counsel Alexander Hubschmidt Associate Sydney Kockler Associate Jack McGuire Associate Vito A. Pinto Partner Christopher Roppolo Associate Gary N. Smith Partner Dennis M. Wade Partner Abed Z. Bhuyan Counsel Robert J. Cosgrove Partner Brian Gibbons Partner Ross G. Gudis Associate Ryan Hunsicker Associate Carol N. Kotsinis Partner Taylor Mitarotonda Associate Sarah Polacek Associate Jean S. Scanlan Associate Corey Stein Associate Jessica Whelan Associate

  • Team

    Filter by: England Florida Associate Long Island New York New Jersey Pennsylvania Of Counsel Law Clerk Operations Counsel Partner Paralegal Filter Patrick J. Argento Patrick J. Argento Counsel Michael A. Bono Michael A. Bono Executive Partner Maria E. Dalmanieras Maria E. Dalmanieras Partner Brian Gibbons Brian Gibbons Partner Michelle B. Gonsoulin Michelle B. Gonsoulin Chief Operating Officer Alexander Hubschmidt Alexander Hubschmidt Associate Sydney Kockler Sydney Kockler Associate Eileen McGlyn Eileen McGlyn Paralegal Martha Osisek Martha Osisek Associate Jenny Rajkowski Jenny Rajkowski Paralegal Carl J. Schaerf Carl J. Schaerf Partner Anand P. Tayal Anand P. Tayal Associate Dennis M. Wade Dennis M. Wade Partner Gina M. Arnedos Gina M. Arnedos Partner Nicole Y. Brown Nicole Y. Brown Managing Partner Helene E. Dalmanieras Helene E. Dalmanieras Paralegal Andrew Gibbs Andrew Gibbs Partner Ross G. Gudis Ross G. Gudis Associate Ryan Hunsicker Ryan Hunsicker Associate Carol N. Kotsinis Carol N. Kotsinis Partner Jack McGuire Jack McGuire Associate Vito A. Pinto Vito A. Pinto Partner Peter R. Restani Peter R. Restani Partner James W. Scott Jr. James W. Scott Jr. Partner Domenica B. Tomasetti Domenica B. Tomasetti Associate Jessica Whelan Jessica Whelan Associate E. Alexis Bevis E. Alexis Bevis Partner Georgia Coats Georgia Coats Partner Thomas J. Decker Thomas J. Decker Of Counsel Ishra Glasswala Ishra Glasswala Associate Andrew D. Henriquez Andrew D. Henriquez Associate Steve J. Kim Steve J. Kim Partner Jason Laicha Jason Laicha Associate Taylor Mitarotonda Taylor Mitarotonda Associate Sarah Polacek Sarah Polacek Associate Christopher Roppolo Christopher Roppolo Associate Gary N. Smith Gary N. Smith Partner Mark Turner Mark Turner Market Representative Abed Z. Bhuyan Abed Z. Bhuyan Counsel Robert J. Cosgrove Robert J. Cosgrove Partner Chip M-P George Chip M-P George Of Counsel Steven F. Goldstein Steven F. Goldstein Of Counsel Christina Herrera Christina Herrera Associate Julia Klein Julia Klein Associate Bruce A. Magaw Bruce A. Magaw Of Counsel Brian T. Noel Brian T. Noel Counsel Alexander Rabhan Alexander Rabhan Associate Jean S. Scanlan Jean S. Scanlan Associate Corey Stein Corey Stein Associate Rachel A. Wade Rachel A. Wade Operations Manager Team Members

  • Reasonable Excuse and Meritorious Defense Leads to Reversal of Unopposed Summary Judgment Award

    News Reasonable Excuse and Meritorious Defense Leads to Reversal of Unopposed Summary Judgment Award June 14, 2024 < Back Share to: ​ In Charles v. Nouveau El. Indus., Inc. , the 2nd Department recently addressed the standard to vacate an order for summary judgment in an unusual case where the trial court never received briefs served on other counsel and treated the motion as unopposed. In that case, the plaintiff sustained injuries after she tripped while entering an elevator due to an alleged 2-inch height difference between the elevator door and the floor of the medical center. Following discovery, the defendant elevator repair company moved for summary judgment. Plaintiff claims that she served her opposition to the defendant via email and to the Supreme Court via mail. Defendant similarly served its reply to plaintiff via email and to the court via mail, but the court never received the papers and granted the motion as unopposed. The trial court subsequently denied plaintiff’s motion to vacate the original order. The Second Department observed that to challenge the order, plaintiff must establish a reasonable excuse for the default and that there is a potentially meritorious opposition to the summary judgment motion. The Appellate Division reasoned that, “a court has [the] discretion to accept law office failure as a reasonable excuse where that claim is supported by a detailed and credible explanation." Since defendant did not oppose the lower court’s determination that plaintiff established a reasonable excuse for there not being an opposition on the record, the Second Department found that plaintiff’s opposition established a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant had actual or constructive notice of the hazardous elevator floor condition. Accordingly, the Court reversed the decision of the trial court and denied defendants summary judgment motion. This case is noteworthy in that an appellate court was willing to overturn an award of summary judgment on an unopposed motion because plaintiff was able to demonstrate that it did prepare a timely opposition and was able to demonstrate issues of fact to defeat the motion. Maintaining a proper record of service of the briefs was critical to the plaintiff’s success in overturning the trial court’s rulings. Charles v. Nouveau .pdf Download PDF • 1.17MB Previous Next Alexander Rabhan Alexander Rabhan Associate +1 212 267 1900 arabhan@wcmlaw.com Contact

  • Robert J. Cosgrove

    Robert J. Cosgrove Partner Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey +1 267 239 5526 +1 212 267 1900 rcosgrove@wcmlaw.com Education J.D., Fordham University School of Law B.S.F.S., Georgetown University Bar Admissions New York New Jersey Pennsylvania Court Admissions Southern District of New York Northern District of New York Eastern District of New York Western District of New York District of New Jersey Eastern District of Pennsylvania Middle District of Pennsylvania Western District of Pennsylvania Second Circuit Court of Appeals Third Circuit Court of Appeals United States Supreme Court Professional Experience A courtroom-tested trial lawyer and appellate advocate, Executive Partner Robert J. Cosgrove has handled cases in state and federal venues across the United States as well as in the International Court of Commerce. Bob litigates a very wide range of matters, including premises and liquor liability cases; trucking and motor vehicle claims; product liability and product recall suits; personal care home, senior living and home health aide cases; and cases involving construction defects, catastrophic personal injury and significant property damage claims. He defends individuals and businesses in complex professional liability and errors and omissions cases, advises clients on fraud-based and other first- and third-party coverage issues, and investigates and litigates fine art, jewelers block policy and cargo cases. A Certified Information Privacy Professional, US, (CIPP/US) and a Certified Information Privacy Manager (CIPM) through the International Association of Privacy Professionals (IAPP), he advises on cases related to fraud, data privacy, and cybersecurity claims and investigations. Before joining WCM, Bob was an Assistant District Attorney with the Nassau County (NY) District Attorney’s Office, where he prosecuted cases ranging from violations of environmental conservation law to gang assaults and high-level narcotics transactions. Honors and Distinctions Bob is OSHA 10 certified and is a Certified Information Privacy Professional, US, (CIPP/US) and Certified Information Privacy Manager (CIPM) through the International Association of Privacy Professionals (IAPP). At Fordham University Bob was a Stein Scholar in Public Interest Law and Ethics (which is where he met his wife with whom he has four children) and a member of the Fordham Environmental Law Journal. He was inducted into Georgetown University’s Theatre Hall of Fame in 2003. Professional Activities A Thompson Reuter Super Lawyer, (No aspect of this advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court of New Jersey. A description of the Super Lawyers selection methodology can be found here: https://www.superlawyers.com/about/selection_process_detail.html ), Bob is a frequent speaker and conducts seminars for organizations, including the International Underwriting Association of London and the Property & Liability Resource Bureau as well as for numerous clients. Bob’s writing has appeared in various books and journals. Bob is a member of the Multi-Million Dollar Advocates Forum, a by-application-only national association of trial lawyers who have obtained multimillion-dollar verdicts and settlements. He has been elected a Fellow of the American Bar Foundation, a research organization dedicated to the study of law, legal institutions and legal processes. In addition to his work for clients, Bob sits as a judge pro tempore, handling settlement conferences in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. He also serves as a member of WCM’s Management Committee, the firm’s governing body. Bob is the former President of the Philadelphia Association of Defense Counsel and the current Vice-president, Northeast Region of the Pennsylvania Defense Institute. He is a member of the Regis Bar Association. Publications Start Spreading the News: A Primer on Cyber Legislation in New York, Defense Research Institute’s Data and Security Dispatch, Volume 6, Issue 1 (May 27, 2021) (co-author with John Amato). Is Our Biometric Data Protected, Counterpoint (December 2020) (co-author with Lauren Berenbaum) Recent Changes to PA’s Statute of Limitations Spark Coverage Questions, Counterpoint (January 2020) (co-author with Lauren Berenbaum). Can You Resell Misappropriated Art?, Freeman’s Newsletter, (January 2019) (co-author with Lauren Berenbaum). Porsches in London: Software, Cars and Recalls, Defense Research Institute Data and Security Dispatch, (December 2018). Somebody’s Watching Me: Defending Data Breach Claims, Counterpoint, (May 2015) (co-author with Adam Gomez). Winning One for the Gipper: The Looming Legal Threats to American Football, Counterpoint (December 2012) (co-author with Paul Clark and Adam Gomez). Surveillance! Out of the Shadows and into the Courtroom, Counterpoint, (April 2012) (co-author with Remy Cahn). How Many Acts Can Comprise a Single Occurrence? The Pennsylvania Supreme Court Weighs In, 2 Bloomberg Law Reports (Insurance Law) 11 (2008). N.Y. Ins. §3420(d) Does Not Apply to Tenders Between Insurers, 235 N.Y.L.J. 74 (2006) (co-author with John Mulcahy). Sidewalk Liability Is Transferred from New York City to Landlords, 230 N.Y.L.J. 52 (2003) (co-author with Paul F. Clark). A New Vision of Lawyers, 26 Fordham Urb. L.J. 1669, (May 1999). Publications I'm a paragraph. Click here to add your own text and edit me. It's easy. Download

  • Nicole Y. Brown

    Nicole Y. Brown Managing Partner New York +1 212 267 1900 nbrown@wcmlaw.com Education J.D. St. John’s University School of Law B.A. State University of New York at Albany Bar Admissions New York New Jersey Court Admissions Eastern District of New York Southern District of New York District of New Jersey Professional Experience Nicole Y. Brown is a skilled litigator who, after more than 20 years of courtroom experience trying cases and arguing appeals in New York state and federal courts, remains passionate about her work on behalf of clients. Nicole handles a very wide variety of complex civil litigation, defending clients against high-exposure labor law, construction, property damage and product defect claims; premises liability, recreational liability, negligent security and Dram shop cases; motor vehicle lawsuits; and negligent hiring and negligent supervision claims. Many of her cases involve catastrophic injuries or significant property losses. Her clients include public and private companies in a variety of industries, including retail and hospitality, as well as municipal agencies, educational institutions and insurers. A self-professed “straight shooter,” Nicole is an analytical and results-driven partner to clients, who trust her to cut away the “fluff” of often-complex cases and present the salient facts, strategies and defenses, so they can make informed decisions on the best path to secure the optimal outcome. Whether at trial, in mediation or in settlement talks, her keen advocacy and often-innovative approaches contribute to her successes on behalf of WCM clients. Nicole also prides herself on being personable, taking time to get to know the people behind the companies and organizations she represents. Nicole joined WCM as a summer associate during law school. She credits her legal knowledge and formidable advocacy skills to her training as a litigator “from Day One” with the firm. In addition to her love of her legal work, Nicole is an avid traveler whose goal is to see as much of the world as she can. She also commits time to volunteer work in the nursery and kids’ ministry at her church. Select Representations Defended charter school in a trip-and-fall case against the plaintiffs’ claim of negligent supervision by highlighting the adequacy of the supervision on the playground at the time of the alleged accident and the co-defendant’s obligation, not our client’s, to maintain the playground, ultimately securing summary judgment and dismissal of the claims against our client. In a high-exposure labor law case, secured a voluntary discontinuance of the claims against our client, the municipal agency that funded the development of the construction project where the accident occurred. Following a multimillion-dollar verdict in a two-week damages-only labor law trial, successfully reduced the verdict by over 50% after post-trial motions and an appeal. Defended a contractor in a labor law case alleging that the plaintiff sustained fractures and subsequently underwent surgery after his foot was crushed by an excavator while the plaintiff was repairing it, arguing that the plaintiff was comparatively negligent, maintaining the pretrial settlement offer in line with our position through jury selection and several days of trial, and finally securing the plaintiff’s agreement to the original offer and settlement during trial. Secured a favorable mediated settlement in a significant personal injury case stemming from a motor vehicle accident in which the plaintiff subsequently underwent multiple spinal surgeries, leveraging the plaintiff’s prior accidents and injuries to reach a settlement of less than 30% of the verdict value of the claim. Honors and Distinctions St. John’s University School of Law Criminal Law Institute’s Frank J. Rogers Mock Trial Competition Runner-up Award Professional Activities American Bar Association New York State Bar Association Publications I'm a paragraph. Click here to add your own text and edit me. It's easy. Download

bottom of page