News Cheryl D. Fuchs Becomes WCM Partner. March 1, 2013 < Back Share to: WCM is pleased to announce that, effective March 1, 2013, Cheryl D. Fuchs is a Partner. Ms. Fuchs, who is admitted in New York and New Jersey, has been a WCM attorney her entire legal career. Cheryl's practice focuses on the defense of N.Y. Labor Law, construction and premises liability cases as well as offering coverage advice across the spectrum of commercial general liability policies. Cheryl takes pride in her zealous advocacy for WCM clients and looks forward to serving your needs in the future. If you have any questions, please contact Diana Mauriello, Communications Director at dmauriello@wcmlaw.com . Previous Next Contact

News Property Owner Is Not Neighbor's Keeper (NY) June 14, 2013 < Back Share to: In order for a plaintiff to maintain a viable claim under the labor law against a property owner, the property owner must own, or at least have some interest in the property where a plaintiff is injured. In Alvarez v Hudson Val. Realty Corp., 23 NY Slip Op 04300, plaintiff commenced an action against Hudson Valley Realty Corp., alleging violations of Labor Law §§§ 240(1), 241(6), and 200. In defense of the matter, Hudson Valley argued that it did not own the property where plaintiff was injured, but rather, was the owner of the abutting property. The Appellate Division, Second Department, upheld the trial court’s ruling, granting Hudson Valley’s motion for summary judgment. The Court held that Hudson Valley demonstrated its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the causes of action asserting violations of Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) by establishing that it was an abutting property owner with no property interest in the premises upon which the plaintiff was injured, and it neither contracted for nor controlled the construction work on the premises. Further, the defendant demonstrated its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the causes of action alleging common-law negligence and violation of Labor Law § 200 by establishing that it did not own, occupy, or control the premises and that it did not have the authority to supervise or control the manner in which the work was performed. Special thanks to Johan Obregon for his contribution. For more information, contact Denise Fontana Ricci at dricci@wcmlaw.com . Previous Next Contact

News Alternate Reality: NJ Court finds Coverage for Spoliation Litigation Strategy that Could Have Been August 22, 2011 < Back Share to: Typically, whether an insurer has a duty to defend is determined by the four corners of the complaint. But in Carlin v. Cornell, Hegerty, & Koch a New Jersey appellate court not only looked to facts that arose “during the resolution of the underlying dispute,” but also considered whether an alternate litigation strategy would have triggered coverage. In the original lawsuit, plaintiffs, employees of a construction company, alleged that they were exposed to high levels of lead while working on a construction project on the Ben Franklin Bridge; one of the allegations was that the construction company intentionally concealed information about the employee’s lead exposure. CIGNA provided a defense to the construction company, and a no-cause verdict was rendered in favor of the defendants after a jury trial. Plaintiffs then filed another lawsuit, alleging that the defendants fraudulently concealed or destroyed evidence (commonly known as “spoliation”) during the first trial. But CIGNA denied coverage, finding that such claims were not covered as an “occurrence” under its CGL policy. Ultimately, the trial court agreed with CIGNA. But the Appellate Division reversed, even though it agreed that the spoliation claims themselves were not covered under the policy. The Court held that there would have clearly been coverage if plaintiffs successfully moved for relief from the trial judgment based on newly discovered evidence," or "fraud… misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party." The Court found that plaintiffs’ spoliation complaint was, “in effect, an attempt to reopen the first litigation on the covered claim on the ground that it did not have all of the pertinent evidence.” Therefore, the defendant seeking coverage “understandably expected the insurer who provided the defense in the first action to do the same here regardless of the merits.” Because plaintiffs could have recovered damages for the covered personal injuries by way of motion to vacate the judgment in the personal injury action -- and because plaintiffs would not have been required to prove any intentional misconduct -- the defendants were, in essence, faced with covered and noncovered claims. Under such circumstances, a carrier is required to defend until all covered claims have been resolved. If you would like more information about this case, please e-mail mbono@wcmlaw.com Previous Next Contact

News WCM Selected as Law Firm of the Year by Pennsylvania Defense Institute July 10, 2025 < Back Share to: WCM is honored to announce that it has been selected as the Law Firm of the Year by the Pennsylvania Defense Institute ( https://padefense.org/ ) which is the Pennsylvania affiliate of the Defense Research Institute ( https://www.dri.org ). The award is a credit to the talent, passion and decency of all of the attorneys and staff who work in WCM’s Pennsylvania office. At the PDI’s annual conference at Bedford Springs ( https://lnkd.in/g9aQufm3 ) to present and accept the award are from left to right Ryan Blazure, President of PDI, WCM Partner Jim Scott, WCM Executive Partner Bob Cosgrove, WCM Partner DJ Dawson, WCM Associate Sarah Polacek and WCM Senior Associate Jason Laicha. https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7349240419337031680 Congratulations to all! Previous Next Robert J. Cosgrove Robert J. Cosgrove Executive Partner +1 267 239 5526 rcosgrove@wcmlaw.com Contact

News Labor Law 240 Applied Expansively to Fallen Fence Post October 2, 2008 < Back Share to: New York's Labor Law Section 240 has been a troublesome statute for defendants. At times, its reach appears nearly limitless. Such is the case of Romero v. Trump Apartments. In Romero, plaintiff was employed as a day laborer who was assisting in the removal of a perimeter chain link fence. Standing on the ground, he held up the fence's horizonal top frame, which was about 8 feet off the ground. During a mishap, this metal post became unmoored, falling less than 3 feet to strike plaintiff on the head. Two issues confronted the court. First, was plaintiff engaged in work protected by Section 240? Second, did the accident involve an "elevation-related" risk bringing it within the scope of Section 240? Not surprisingly, the motion court held that the demolition of a fence triggered Section 240 because it involved the demolition of a "structure." Further, although being struck by a falling object can trigger a Labor Law claim, the court ruled that a pipe falling 33 inches is not a de minimus distance. So much for the statute being limited to falls from a scaffold, ladder or a height. The practical effect was that plaintiff was granted summary judgment and the defendant was stripped of its right to claim that plaintiff was comparatively negligent to any degree. Our advice is simple. Never underestimate the scope of Section 240 of the Labor Law. Its reach is expansive and the effect of its application ominous: a breach of the statute results in strict liability and the defendant cannot argue that plaintiff was comparatively negligent. The goal for owners and general contractors is to shift liability to those contractors who were responsible for directing, supervising, and controlling the activities that led to plaintiff's injuries. http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2008/2008_51887.htm Previous Next Contact

News Application of Revised "First Bite" Doctrine Results in Dismissal of Suit November 1, 2011 < Back Share to: In 2007, John Smith brought suit against Marijane Reilly because her dog broke free from its leash, ran into the street and collided with plaintiff Smith's bicycle. As a result of the collision, Smith was thrown over the handlebars of his bicycle and fell to the ground, causing injury. Defendant moved for summary judgment, citing that she had "no knowledge of her dog's alleged propensity to interfere with traffic." At trial, the Court denied defendant's motion, because the court ruled that the prior instances of the dog of escaping defendant's control and running towards the road constituted triable issues of material fact. The Court of Appeals disagreed and reversed, because the dog's prior actions were insufficient to raise a material issue of fact, since the dog had never specifically chased cars or bicycles before. The decision strongly suggests that in order for an owner to be liable for the actions of his/her dog, there must be evidence that the dog had a propensity to behave in a manner very similar to what is alleged in the case at bar. Here, the dog chased a bicycle, but because the dog had never specifically chased a bicycle in the street before, there was no triable issue of material fact regarding the dog's propensity. Thanks to Brian Gibbons for his contribution to this post. http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2011/2011_07478.htm Previous Next Contact

News Court Reinforces High Standard For Proving Dangerous Condition (NJ) November 7, 2019 < Back Share to: In Deravil v. Pantaleone, the plaintiff was struck by a motor vehicle while crossing the street outside of a designated cross-walk at night while wearing dark clothing. The area where the plaintiff was struck lacked functioning street lights, and the trees and utility poles allegedly obstructed the view of the road for both pedestrians and drivers. Additionally, at the point of impact, the sidewalk abruptly stopped, which may have led to the plaintiff entering the roadway. Plaintiffs argued that the road was a dangerous condition, and Township and the County were liable for the plaintiff’s death under New Jersey Torts Claims Act (TCA). The court dismissed the claims against the Township and County, finding that the road was not in a dangerous condition and that the plaintiff chose to take the risk. Plaintiff appealed, arguing that the failure to use a cross-walk does not eliminate liability for creating a dangerous condition, and the abrupt termination of the sidewalk could be interpreted as a signal that a pedestrian must cross the street to continue their path. On appeal, the Appellate Court noted that, under the TCA, a dangerous condition means a condition of property that creates a substantial risk of injury when used with due care in a manner in which it is reasonably foreseeable that it will be used. In this case, no jury could conclude that the road was in a dangerous condition and the plaintiff’s use of the road was so objectively unreasonable that the condition itself did not cause the accident. This case is important because it highlights the standards that a plaintiff must meet to prove the existence of a dangerous condition under the TCA. Thanks to Heather Aquino for her contribution to this post. Please email Georgia Coats with any questions. Previous Next Contact

News The Court May View, But Not Weigh, the Evidence on Summary Judgment September 16, 2022 < Back Share to: In Garcia v. Security First Ins. Co., 5D21-1456, 2022 Fla. App. LEXIS 6197, 2022 WL 4111171 (Fla. 5th DCA September 9, 2022) the insured homeowner made a claim for water damage after a roof leak claim. At deposition, the insured admitted to a prior roof leak and later produced pictures and a damage report. The insurer moved for summary judgment arguing that the insured’s concealment of the prior damage and false statement regarding the pre-loss condition of the home forfeited coverage. The trial court, finding that it was entitled to weigh the credibility and the evidence under Florida’s new summary judgment rule (which mirrors the federal rule), granted summary judgment. On appeal, Florida’s Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that: “Credibility determinations and weighing the evidence ‘are jury functions, not those of a judge,’ when ruling on a motion for summary judgment.” While this sounds basic, there has been much debate over the reach of Florida’s new summary judgment rule – some argue that the court may weigh the evidence, others argue that it may not. Garcia is the first appellate case decision dealing with the issue and every trial court in Florida must follow Garcia until the appellate court sitting in their District rules differently. Claims professionals should keep Garcia in mind when seeking summary judgment in Florida. Thanks to Charles "Chip" George for his contribution to this post. Please contact Chip with any questions. Previous Next Contact

News WCM Congratulates Nicole Brown on her 25th Anniversary June 24, 2022 < Back Share to: When Nicole Brown started at WCM as a Summer associate, the Summer of 1997 was just getting rolling. WCM, founded in 1994, was still just a toddler. We like to say on our website, “Results Speak for Themselves.” But at the time, we hardly had any results yet. To give some perspective, Tom Brady was still a sophomore at Michigan, Derek Jeter was halfway into his second season, and ER, Seinfeld and Stone Cold Steve Austin were dominating the TV ratings. Smartphones were not a thing, and email was an “emerging” technology. My, how things have changed. As a Summer associate, Nicole began working with her first mentor, John Mulcahy. Since that time, WCM has reaped the benefits of Nicole’s entire legal career to date, as a law clerk, full time associate, partner, and now, Managing Partner and steadying force behind WCM, especially in the New York City office. We simply cannot imagine WCM without Nicole, and hopefully, will not have to for another 25 years. (And if you listen closely, you can hear Nicole laughing at that last sentence...) Cheers to Nicole Brown on her silver WCM Anniversary! Previous Next Contact

News Jury's Web Research Leads to Mistrial (NY) May 2, 2013 < Back Share to: Speaking with the jury after a trial is always fraught with peril. That issue recently came to light in Olshantesky v. NYCTA, where it was discovered after the trial that the jury consulted an on-line dictionary to help them define the term “substantial.” The trial court found, and the appellate court agreed, that such research constituted juror misconduct, warranting a mistrial. Interestingly, the appellate court allowed the damages award to stand, finding no evidence that the misconduct affected the jury’s determination on damages. However, the parties will be required to retry the liability case. If you would like more information, please write to Mike Bono. Previous Next Contact

News Summary Denial of Summary Judgment (NY) August 21, 2020 < Back Share to: New York Labor Law, colloquially called the Scaffold Law, has been a windfall for plaintiffs. Under §240(1) of the law, owners and general contractors are strictly liable when a worker is injured due to a gravity related risk. The case of Henriquez v. Clarence P. Grant Hous. Dev. Fund Co., Inc. reminds us that there are still limitations and defenses to these expensive claims. In Henriquez, plaintiff allegedly sustained injuries when a plank of wood fell on his head as he was dismantling a scaffold. He moved for summary judgment and was denied. The Second Department affirmed the denial. To prevail in a falling object case, the court affirmed that the plaintiff must demonstrate that at the time the object fell, it was either being hoisted or secured, or required securing for the purposes of the undertaking. In addition, it must be shown that the object fell because of the absence or inadequacy of a safety device enumerated in the statute. In this case, plaintiff’s evidence failed to establish that the plank fell because of the absence or inadequacy of a safety device. Plaintiffs often believe that the occurrence of a gravity-related accident will automatically lead to summary judgment. However, these are fact specific inquiries and summary judgment is never guaranteed. While comparative fault is not a defense to these actions, a question of fact may still be raised to defeat summary judgment. Thanks to Mehreen Hayat for her contribution to this post. Please contact Heather Aquino with any questions. Previous Next Contact

News Ethics Committee not Amused by Comedian/Judge (NJ) October 21, 2010 < Back Share to: By day, Judge Vincenzo Sicari presides over a Municipal Court in Hackensack, NJ, but by night he works the comedy circuit as "Vince August." He sought guidance from the Advisory Committee of Extra Judicial Activities as to whether this practice was acceptable, and the committee recently advised him that he needs to pack in his act if he wants to continue on the Bench. The Judge has now petitioned the Supreme Court of New Jersey to weigh in on the issue. The panel based its decision, in part, on Canon 2B of the Code of Judicial Ethics which states: "A judge should not allow family, social, political, or other relationships to influence judicial conduct or judgment. A judge should not lend the prestige of office to advance the private interests of others; nor should a judge convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position of influence." The Judge sought a compromise, advising the committee that he would only use a stage name and would decline any request for press interviews. But the committee found that there were earlier articles and stories available on the Internet, including some showing his photograph. Therefore, he could be recognized as a local municipal judge, and some of his material could "suggest bias, predisposition and lack of impartiality, which could negatively impinge on the perceptions of litigants, witnesses and the public at large." Although the Judge indicates he may retire from the bench in the coming months, he still intends to pursue his appeal. We'll keep you posted. If you'd like further information, please e-mail mbono@wcmlaw.com . http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/nj/ACEA-Op12-08.pdf Previous Next Contact