News Mediation Agreements Are Binding in NJ. August 12, 2011 < Back Share to: In the case of Willingboro Mall v. 240/242 Franklin Avenue, et al., the plaintiff appealed from an order enforcing a settlement reached during a mediation session conducted pursuant to Rule 1:40-4. Plaintiff argued that the rule precludes enforcement of an oral settlement reached at a nonbinding mediation session. It also contended the alleged settlement was the product of coercion by the mediator. The facts giving rise to the appeal are as follows. Plaintiff and defendants were commercial real estate entities who were involved in a default and foreclosure dispute. The parties were referred to mediation by the General Equity judge. The parties selected a retired Superior Court Judge as mediator, and attended a mediation session with their attorneys at the office of defendants' attorney. After several hours, the parties agreed to a settlement. Counsel for defendants then wrote a letter to the General Equity judge to inform him that the parties had reached a settlement. The letter also stated the terms of the settlement. Plaintiff refused to consummate the settlement and instead asserted that a final, binding settlement agreement had not been reached at the mediation session. Defendants then filed a motion to enforce the mediated settlement agreement, and supported the motion with a certification of their attorney and the mediator. A plenary hearing was conducted and a written opinion was issued, which found that the parties did in fact arrive at a settlement of the underlying case, and that the settlement was therefore binding. On appeal, plaintiff argued that Rule 1:40-4(i) prevented enforcement of an oral settlement because the terms of the settlement were not reduced to writing at the mediation session, a copy of the writing was not provided to each party, and the parties did not affix their signatures to the writing at the mediation session. In addition, plaintiff argued that enforcement of a settlement reached at a mediation session is contrary to the non-binding nature of the mediation process. The Appellate Division agreed with the trial court. It ruled that mediation is utilized to afford the parties an opportunity to present their position before an experienced professional with the goal of resolving some or all of the differences between the parties. Rule 1:40-4 (i) does not prohibit the mediator or one of the parties from reducing the terms of the agreement to writing shortly after conclusion of the mediation session as occurred in this case. Specifically, the court noted that in this case, three days after the mediation session, defendants' attorney prepared and sent a letter stating the terms of the agreement reached by the parties. Two weeks later, he sent another letter informing plaintiff that he had placed the sum required to resolve the dispute in an escrow account. The Appellate Court held that these writings, the first memorializing the terms of the settlement and the second notifying plaintiff of defendants' action to consummate the settlement, were within the intention of the rule requiring the agreement to be reduced to writing. Two important points bear mention here. First, sometimes attorneys (and litigants) are held to their word and bound by their verbal actions. Second, and perhaps more importantly, know your case and the attorneys. If the attorneys on the other side seem like the kind of folks who will try to weasel their way out of an agreement, don’t leave the mediation until a written agreement is finalized and signed by all parties. It might take a little bit longer, but it’s certainly worth the effort – in fact, we just did this on a case on Wednesday where a post mediation “agreement on written terms” seemed like it might be hard to come by. But that’s a story for a different day… Special thanks to Sheila Osei for her contributions to this post. For more information about it, or WCM's NJ practice, please contact Bob Cosgrove at rcosgrove@wcmlaw.com . Previous Next Contact

Latest News Button June 23, 2026 Read More New Jersey Court Grants Summary Judgment in Medical Malpractice Action Based on Untimely Expert Disclosures New Jersey Court Grants Summary Judgment in Medical Malpractice Action Based on Untimely Expert Disclosures Button February 24, 2026 Read More Experienced Parter Scott A. Lazar Joins Wade Clark Mulcahy LLP’s New Jersey Office Experienced Parter Scott A. Lazar Joins Wade Clark Mulcahy LLP’s New Jersey Office Button January 20, 2026 Read More First Department Affirms Major Coverage Ruling for Specie Market, Holding the “Unattended Vehicle” Exclusion Applies to Goods on Consignment First Department Affirms Major Coverage Ruling for Specie Market, Holding the “Unattended Vehicle” Exclusion Applies to Goods on Consignment Button December 4, 2025 Read More New York's Highest Court Affirms WCM's Victory Regarding Tenders in Public Sidewalk Cases New York's Highest Court Affirms WCM's Victory Regarding Tenders in Public Sidewalk Cases Button October 21, 2025 Read More First Department Reaffirms Litigants’ Right to Move Without Prior Judicial Approval First Department Reaffirms Litigants’ Right to Move Without Prior Judicial Approval Button July 25, 2025 Read More WCM Selected as Law Firm of the Year by Pennsylvania Defense Institute WCM Selected as Law Firm of the Year by Pennsylvania Defense Institute Button February 8, 2025 Read More First Department Rules that Circumstances Do Matter in Evaluating AI Tenders in Public Sidewalk Cases First Department Rules that Circumstances Do Matter in Evaluating AI Tenders in Public Sidewalk Cases Button January 15, 2025 Read More DJ Dawson and Sarah Polacek secure a Trial Victory in Philadelphia DJ Dawson and Sarah Polacek secure a Trial Victory in Philadelphia Button January 3, 2025 Read More Jason Laicha Promoted to Senior Associate Jason Laicha Promoted to Senior Associate Button October 10, 2024 Read More Mike Bono to Present at IFASIC Conference in Budapest Mike Bono to Present at IFASIC Conference in Budapest Button October 8, 2024 Read More WCM Wins Major Coverage Ruling for Specie Market: Classic “Unattended Vehicle” Exclusion Applies to Goods on Consignment WCM Wins Major Coverage Ruling for Specie Market: Classic “Unattended Vehicle” Exclusion Applies to Goods on Consignment Button September 27, 2024 Read More When Making a Notice of Claim, Make Sure to Include EVERY Claim the First Time When Making a Notice of Claim, Make Sure to Include EVERY Claim the First Time Button September 27, 2024 Read More LIABLE, UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT: How Landlords Must Be Clear About the Transferring of Possession and Control When Leasing Property LIABLE, UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT: How Landlords Must Be Clear About the Transferring of Possession and Control When Leasing Property Button September 27, 2024 Read More How “Serious”’ Means Serious Injury How “Serious”’ Means Serious Injury Button September 27, 2024 Read More Even Though He Couldn’t See, it’s Defendant’s Fault Even Though He Couldn’t See, it’s Defendant’s Fault Button September 27, 2024 Read More Subcontractor’s Insurer Must Reimburse General Contractor For Defense Costs in Workplace Injury to Subcontractor’s Employee Subcontractor’s Insurer Must Reimburse General Contractor For Defense Costs in Workplace Injury to Subcontractor’s Employee Button September 23, 2024 Read More Cards Against Humanity Sues SpaceX Over Texas Trespass Cards Against Humanity Sues SpaceX Over Texas Trespass Button September 20, 2024 Read More No Duty to Defend: Insurers Off the Hook in "Ghost Gun" Sales Case No Duty to Defend: Insurers Off the Hook in "Ghost Gun" Sales Case Button September 20, 2024 Read More Navigating the Affirmative Negligence Exception in Trip and Fall Cases Against the City Navigating the Affirmative Negligence Exception in Trip and Fall Cases Against the City Button September 20, 2024 Read More What is Considered Adequate Inspection Of An Establishment? What is Considered Adequate Inspection Of An Establishment? Button September 20, 2024 Read More Balancing the Scales: The Role of Res Ipsa Loquitur in Pennsylvania Negligence Cases Balancing the Scales: The Role of Res Ipsa Loquitur in Pennsylvania Negligence Cases Button September 20, 2024 Read More The Fine Print Matters: Winning Contractual Indemnification Claims Between Tenants and Landlords The Fine Print Matters: Winning Contractual Indemnification Claims Between Tenants and Landlords Button September 13, 2024 Read More Coverage Limits, Continuing Causes, and COVID-19: District Court of New Jersey Holds COVID-19 Executive Orders Constitute One “Occurrence” Coverage Limits, Continuing Causes, and COVID-19: District Court of New Jersey Holds COVID-19 Executive Orders Constitute One “Occurrence” Button September 13, 2024 Read More It Wasn’t the Pig’s Fault It Wasn’t the Pig’s Fault Button September 6, 2024 Read More Notice of Claim Pitfall: New York Appellate Court Confirms That Original Deficiencies Cannot Be Corrected With §50-h Hearing Testimony Notice of Claim Pitfall: New York Appellate Court Confirms That Original Deficiencies Cannot Be Corrected With §50-h Hearing Testimony Load More

Job Listings Job Type Select Job Type Workspace Select Workspace Search Jobs Number of jobs found: 2 Associate Attorney West Palm Beach, FL, USA View Job Associate Attorney Springfield, NJ, USA View Job

News SDNY: Suit Alleging Christie’s Misidentification of da Vinci Work Time Barred February 12, 2011 < Back Share to: While the art world is riddled with forgeries and stolen works or art, some dealers may also have to be mindful of the reputable auction houses which display their collections. Last week, District Judge John Koetl of the Southern District of New York, dismissed as time barred an action by Jeanne Marchig, and her charitable trust, against Christie’s -- http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/02/02/DaVinci.pdf The suit alleged that Christie's negligently failed to identify her piece of art as a valuable drawing done by Leonardo da Vinci. The relevant facts are as follows. Jeanne Marchig approached the London location of the famed auction house seeking to consign and auction off a drawing she believed was composed by a late-Renaissance Italian painter. Christie’s resident old master drawing’s expert examined the piece and set an estimated value of $12,000-15,000. In January 1998, it ultimately sold at auction for $22,000. More than 11 years later, in July 2009, Marchig was approached by other experts in the art world who believed her previously sold drawing was actually the work of da Vinci, and could be valued as high as $100 million. Marchig brought an action against Christie’s claiming the auction house had been careless and failed to properly investigate her drawing. While both sides engaged experts to determine the authenticity and true origin of the work, Christie’s moved to bar the claims as untimely, alleging the applicable statute of limitations (3 years – negligence, breach of fiduciary duty and 6 years – negligent appraisal) had long since expired. Judge Koetl agreed and dismissed the action as too much time had passed between the appraisal in question and the suit. Special thanks to Chris O'Leary for his contributions to this post. For more information about it, or WCM's fine art practice, please contact Bob Cosgrove at rcosgrove@wcmlaw.com . Previous Next Contact

News Mere Presence Of A Hazard Does Not Create Liability August 18, 2011 < Back Share to: In Atashi v. Fred-Doug 117, LLC, the First Department reaffirmed the lower court’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s compliant, holding that the defendants did not create the alleged dangerous condition that caused the plaintiff’s accident, nor did they have actual or constructive notice. Atashi, a security guard at the defendants’ building, tripped and fell over a large flatbed dolly that tenants sometimes borrowed from the building staff. The court held that the presence of the dolly alone did not equate liability onto the defendants. Atashi conceded that the dolly was not in the hallway five hours prior to the accident, and he would have been the only employee on site that day responsible for inspecting the location on the defendants’ behalf. Thus, absent any evidence to establish that the defendants created the condition, or would have been made aware of the condition by another building employee, his complaint had to be dismissed. Thanks to Lora Gleicher for her contribution to this post. http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2011/2011_06290.htm Previous Next Contact

Filter by: Filter by: Partner New York Pennsylvania Counsel New Jersey Florida Paralegal Operations Of Counsel Associate Long Island Louisiana England Texas Filter Law Clerk Jonathan H. Adams Jonathan H. Adams Counsel Admitted LA Abed Z. Bhuyan Abed Z. Bhuyan Partner Admitted NY Harris D. Bresowsky Harris D. Bresowsky Associate Admitted in NY Georgia Coats Georgia Coats Partner Admitted NY Helene E. Dalmanieras Helene E. Dalmanieras Paralegal Charles N. Frank Charles N. Frank Associate Admitted in PA Laina T. Goldwin Laina T. Goldwin Associate Admitted in PA, NJ Simone N. Henderson Simone N. Henderson Associate Admitted in PA Jennifer Corbett Kerrick Jennifer Corbett Kerrick Associate Admitted PA Scott A. Lazar Scott A. Lazar Partner Admitted NJ, NY Taylor Mitarotonda Taylor Mitarotonda Senior Associate Admitted NY Janette Nweme-Singley Janette Nweme-Singley Associate Admitted NY Jenny Rajkowski Jenny Rajkowski Paralegal Corey Stein Corey Stein Associate Admitted NY Dennis M. Wade Dennis M. Wade Partner Admitted PA, NY, NJ Patrick J. Argento Patrick J. Argento Counsel Admitted NY Teresa G. Bohne Teresa G. Bohne Partner Admitted TX Nicole Y. Brown Nicole Y. Brown Managing Partner Admitted NY, NJ Ashley R. Corcoran Ashley R. Corcoran Associate Admitted in NJ, NY D.J. Dawson D.J. Dawson Partner Admitted PA Hannah M. Garber Hannah M. Garber Associate Admitted in PA Michelle B. Gonsoulin Michelle B. Gonsoulin Chief Operating Officer Ryan Hunsicker Ryan Hunsicker Senior Associate Admitted PA, NJ Jordan Korb Jordan Korb Associate Admitted NY Alexandra McShane, Pa.C.P. Alexandra McShane, Pa.C.P. Litigation Paralegal Marc D. Mory Marc D. Mory Counsel Admitted NJ, NY Nicholas A. Ozorowski Nicholas A. Ozorowski Associate Admitted PA Peter R. Restani Peter R. Restani Partner Admitted FL Anand P. Tayal Anand P. Tayal Associate Admitted PA, NJ Emily C. Walpole Emily C. Walpole Of Counsel Admitted NY Gina M. Arnedos Gina M. Arnedos Partner Admitted NY Garrett Bolton Garrett Bolton Associate Admitted in NJ Clay Brown Clay Brown Associate Admitted NY, KY Robert J. Cosgrove Robert J. Cosgrove Executive Partner Admitted NY, NJ, PA Chynna S. Demas Chynna S. Demas Associate Admitted LA, AL, TN , NY Chip M-P George Chip M-P George Of Counsel Admitted FL Shonette K. Greene Shonette K. Greene Law Clerk Elizabeth A. Isser Elizabeth A. Isser Counsel Admitted NJ & NY Jason Laicha Jason Laicha Counsel Admitted PA, NY Pablo O. Madriz Pablo O. Madriz Counsel Admitted NY, CA Caroline G. Nelson Caroline G. Nelson Associate Admitted NJ, NY, PA Sarah Polacek Sarah Polacek Senior Associate Admitted PA, NJ Christopher Roppolo Christopher Roppolo Associate Admitted NY, PA Mark Turner Mark Turner Market Representative Jessica Whelan Jessica Whelan Associate Admitted PA E. Alexis Bevis E. Alexis Bevis Partner Admitted LA Michael A. Bono Michael A. Bono Executive Partner Admitted NY, NJ, PA Joseph A. Capone Joseph A. Capone Associate Attorney Admitted NJ, NY Maria E. Dalmanieras Maria E. Dalmanieras Partner Admitted FL James D. Dudley James D. Dudley Associate Admitted in PA Brian Gibbons Brian Gibbons Partner Admitted NY William A. Healy IV William A. Healy IV Counsel Admitted NY Nishall N. Jairam Nishall N. Jairam Counsel Admitted FL, NY Zachary Lawrence Zachary Lawrence Associate Attorney Admitted in NY Eileen McGlyn Eileen McGlyn Paralegal Brian T. Noel Brian T. Noel Partner Admitted NY, PA, NJ Alexander Rabhan Alexander Rabhan Senior Associate Admitted NY James W. Scott Jr. James W. Scott Jr. Partner Admitted PA, NJ Rachel A. Wade Rachel A. Wade Director of Human Resources Team Members

News Criminal Penalties for "Tweeting" Jurors August 12, 2011 < Back Share to: We have reported on several occasions about how social media has been slowly changing the legal landscape, particularly in terms of instructions to be given to jurors during trial proceedings. While judges must always instruct jurors not to communicate with anyone about the pending proceedings, jurors have continuously failed to comprehend that the judge's instructions also apply to Facebook and twitter. California has decided to be proactive about such juror actions, and is amending its jury instruction to include a prohibition against "any form of electronic or wireless communication." Violators potentially face six months in jail. New York was a bit ahead of the game on this issue as it revised its jury instructions in May 2009. A "tweeting juror" in NY can be charged with criminal contempt, and very nearly was in the case of People v. Rios, 2010 WL 625221 (N.Y. Sup., 2010) during a well publicized arson trial in Bronx County. Thanks to Biran Gibbons for his contribution to this post. Previous Next Contact

News WCM Partner Speaks to Academy of Experts in London. March 23, 2018 < Back Share to: On March 14, 2018, WCM Partner Bob Cosgrove spoke to The Academy of Experts at Gray’s Inn, Inns of Court, London, UK. His presentation was entitled “I’m a Bit of an Expert: The Use of Experts in US Litigation.” The seminar explained the differences between US and UK approaches on experts and how that impacts the ultimate outcomes of litigation. For more information about this post please e-mail Bob Cosgrove. Previous Next Contact

News This and That by Dennis Wade August 5, 2021 < Back Share to: On April 3, 2018, I was called to jury service as a trial juror in Supreme Court, New York County. And, for a lawyer, being on the other side of the courtroom rail is a thought provoking experience. My chances of being chosen to sit on a civil tort suit, of course, were slim--former prosecutor, insurance defense and coverage attorney and an acquaintance with many of the plaintiff and defense practitioners in New York County. Step one in the jury selection process is Voir Dire, an Anglo-French term which literally means: To see, to speak. But I prefer the Latin derivation of the phrase: Verum dicere, meaning “To say what is true.” What the law wants is “fair and impartial” jurors who will decide the case on the facts disclosed at trial. What advocates want is something else--jurors “open” to their view of the matter on trial. Jury selection has become a science, a practice featured on Bull, a popular TV drama featuring Michael Weatherly playing Dr. Jason Bull, a character modeled after Phil McGraw who began one of the most successful trial consulting firms in the country. Like all jury consultants, Bull purports to use everything from social media to neurolinguistics to discern what really makes a juror tick, and thus either a good or bad choice for counsel. As I sat through my first voir dire in a medical malpractice action, I re-discovered, in a visceral way, what I always knew, the challenge for the lawyers is to judge whether the prospective juror is really saying what is true (verum dicere). Potential jurors who don’t want to serve, to be sure, know what answers to give. And all good advocates recognize these for what they are--polite fibs to avoid the trial time commitment. So, the real challenge begins when the fibbers fall away and the potential panel consists of those citizens prepared to give of their time to decide the contest. I have used jury consultants and their insights are often valuable. The usefulness of their contribution depends in large measure on how well counsel has developed its trial themes and the overall narrative of the story counsel plans to tell at trial. But the reality is jury consultants are pricey and the cost often outweighs the potential benefit in the garden variety controversy. So, how do you tell whether the juror is telling the truth about potential bias, about attitudes, about whatever issue matters to your trial themes. There are no magic answers. Go with your gut. And if you want a rationale for this tried and true advice, I urge you to read Blink by Malcolm Gladwell who had a simple but profound insight: We get into trouble when we try to talk ourselves out of a gut feeling. According to Gladwell, our brains are fabulous microprocessors that process information on many, many levels--levels well beyond our conscious awareness. Say, for example, your gut tells you something is “off” about an engineer in the panel of prospective jurors; yet, your mind tells you a person trained to solve problems and think logically is ideal. What to do? Gladwell would urge you to follow your instinct and use a peremptory challenge to strike the engineer. By now, after this musing, you're wondering what became of my jury service. I was bounced from a panel in a medical malpractice “pre-qualification” panel because WCM had cases with defense counsel’s firm. And, at 4pm, the jury clerk dismissed everyone because so few cases were trial ready because of Spring Break Week. But back to Gladwell, and another word of caution. A nurse excused from the same med-mal panel and I started chatting as we headed for the exit upon being excused from our term of service. But she, unlike me, sat through several hours of questioning. Bold, and thinking of Gladwell, I asked my new friend: “Based on what you saw during voir dire--and if you needed a lawyer--who would you hire?” “Easy call,” she said, “Plaintiff’s Attorney.” Puzzled, I asked why, because, to my eye, defendant’s counsel seemed, well, more authentic and in command. The answer? “Defendant’s counsel slouched and was sloppy in appearance. “ The moral of this tale is this: Stand straight and wear clothes that fit. To give my elevator friend due credit, defendant’s lawyer did look like he was wearing his older brother’s suit. And it was green, a poor color choice for an advocate unless, of course, you are Reaganesque. And that’s it for this This and That. Previous Next Contact

News Failure to Prevent Bullying = Liability for Discrimination? September 29, 2011 < Back Share to: Last week New Jersey legislators passed an "Anti-Bullying Bill of Rights." The bill revised the 2002 New Jersey law on harassment, intimidation, and bullying in public schools. According to one legislator, the Bill "makes it clear that preventing and responding to incidents of harassment, intimidation and bullying are not optional." Rather the Bill sets forth specific protocols for investigating, reporting and training necessary to deal with bullying. The question for schools and courts to consider going forward is whether implementation of the protocols and/or the failure to do so, will render the schools liable in discrimination suits commenced by/on behalf of the bullied students. Thanks to Cheryl Fuchs for her contribution to this post. http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/11/nj_legislature_sends_anti-bull.html http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2010/Bills/A3500/3466_S1.PDF Previous Next Contact

News In NY, a Tender Requires Support. August 12, 2011 < Back Share to: In Admiral Ins. Co. v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., the plaintiff insurer sought a declaration that the defendant insurer was obligated to defend and indemnify plaintiff P&K Contracting in the underlying personal injury action. The relevant facts of that tender are as follows. In October 2002, an employee of Shahid Enterprises, a subcontractor retained by P&K, was injured when he fell from a ladder. In 2003, the employee commenced a lawsuit. On September 22, 2003, United Claims Service, as authorized representatives of the plaintiff, sent a tender letter to Shahid demanding defense and indemnification. On December 17, 2003, UCS sent Shahid a follow up letter with copies to State Farm, Shahid’s insurer. In the letter, UCS did not indicate when it first received notice of the incident or lawsuit. State Farm claimed it did not receive this letter until January 22, 2004, because the letter was forwarded to an inactive claims office. On February 5, 2004, State Farm wrote to UCS and P&K requesting a copy of the file since it had no information on the accident. On March 19, 2004, State Farm sent UCS, plaintiff, P&K, and Shahid a letter wherein it reserved its right to deny defense and indemnity based on late notice. By letter dated April 13, 2004—now 113 days after UCS’ December 17, 2003 follow up letter—State Farm disclaimed coverage based on P&K’s failure to give prompt notice. Both plaintiff and defendant moved for summary judgment and both motions were denied, as the Supreme Court found that triable issues of fact existed as to whether State Farm disclaimed coverage as soon as was reasonably possible. In affirming the trial court's decision, the First Department focused on the fact that the December 17, 2003 follow up letter did not provide State Farm with any information regarding when P&K received notice of the incident or suit, and thus did not make it “readily apparent” that State Farm had the right to disclaim coverage. In reaching that conclusion, the court noted its disapproval of the policy of disclaiming now and investigating later. The moral of the story is -- if you're pressing a tender, make sure you provide enough information for the tender to be analyzed. Otherwise, you're going to be fighting a long legal battle. Special thanks to Gabe Darwick for his contributions to this post. For more information about it, or WCM's coverage practice, please contact Bob Cosgrove at rcosgrove@wcmlaw.com . Previous Next Contact

Practice Areas Appellate Casualty Defense Commercial Auto & Trucking Commercial Litigation Construction Litigation Cybersecurity & Data Privacy Dram Shop Education and Not for Profit Law Employment Law Fine Art and Specie First Party Property Fraud Investigation and Prosecution Insurance Coverage Premises Liability Products Liability Professional Liability Retail & Hospitality Sports and Recreational Liability Subrogation and Recovery