Wade Clark Mulcahy LLP

Time Out This page isn’t available right now. But we’re working on a fix, ASAP. Try again soon. Go Back

Time Out This page isn’t available right now. But we’re working on a fix, ASAP. Try again soon. Go Back

News Unambiguous Limitations In Agency Agreement Enforced By NJ Appellate Division. December 22, 2009 < Back Share to: Traverso v. Guthaim, et al, was an insurance coverage case involving a dispute between, Charles Heidt , Inc, an insurance agency, and Encompass Insurance Company. Pursuant to the terms of an Agency Agreement , Encompass authorized Heidt to bind certain kinds of insurance contracts issued by Encompass, but subject to various limitations and underwriting quidelines. The trial court granted Encompass' Motion for a directed verdict finding that Heidt's authority to bind coverage was clearly and unambiguously limited by the Agency Agreement and the underwriting guidelines issued by Encompass, and that Heidt exceeded its authority when it attempted to add a three-family house to the insured's existing homeowner's policy. The Appellate Division affirmed . http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/opinions/a1562-07.pdf Previous Next Contact

News Our Remote Summer Associate Experience at WCM During COVID-19 August 10, 2020 < Back Share to: (The following post is a collaboration from our 6 Summer Associates for 2020, who, suffice it to say, received a very different WCM experience than we were all planning. They all did a great job, and hopefully, learned a lot in this unique, remote environment. Best of luck to Gina, Drew, Alex, Jessica, Daniel & Rebecca in their 3L year and beyond). When we accepted our offers to spend our 3L summer at WCM, we pictured 10 weeks of mingling with our coworkers in a bustling office, collaborating in conference rooms and travelling between the office and court to see the associates and partners in action. Of course, COVID-19 had different plans. Instead, we collaborated over Microsoft Teams, observed remote depositions, and best of all, attended a remote happy hour or two. Although many of our peers were scrambling to find alternative opportunities for the summer, WCM honored their word and provided us each with a meaningful experience, despite the hardships caused by COVID-19. WCM made it possible for us to experience their firm culture without ever stepping foot in an office by adapting their summer program to be 100% remote, yet still effective. Over these past 10 weeks, we worked with various Partners and Associates on a wide range of assignments such as drafting memoranda of law, motions, and subpoenas, and various legal research assignments. These assignments introduced us to many different fields of law, like insurance coverage, torts, employment, and even environmental. Additionally, we collaborated on an extensive research project for a client, which provided an interesting gateway into the world of insurance coverage throughout the United States. We saw the product of our work come to life when two Partners presented our research in a client presentation. Even though the impact of COVID-19 completely changed the expectations we had for the summer program, working remotely had a silver lining: we were able to work with Partners and Associates from all of WCM’s offices, an opportunity we likely would not have had if our program were in-person. After spending 10 weeks at a law firm during a global pandemic, it is clear that the practice of law is likely forever changed and will continue to face obstacles. But WCM's ability to run effectively, and provide a fulfilling legal experience, offers hope for what is to come in the legal field. Despite the chaotic circumstances, we thank WCM for its mentorship, and for providing us with knowledge and skills that have better equipped us for a career as lawyers. Sincerely, Alex Goldberg, Drexel University’s Thomas R. Kline School of Law Daniel Axelrod, Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University Drew Fryhoff, Brooklyn Law School Gina Rodriguez, New York Law School Jessica Melusky, Drexel University’s Thomas R. Kline School of Law Rebecca Stark, St. John’s University School of Law Previous Next Contact

There’s Nothing Here... We can’t find the page you’re looking for. Check the URL, or head back home. Go Home

News Wade Clark Mulcahy LLP Victorious in Binding Arbitration November 9, 2018 < Back Share to: Partner, Vincent Terrasi recently secured a win at a binding arbitration in the case of Scuorzo v. Safdar, et. al. Scuorzo was a pedestrian struck by a black livery car in Manhattan in 2010. The black livery car claimed that it was caused to hit the pedestrian due to the negligent operation of an ambulance that entered an intersection against a red signal. The ambulance driver activated an air horn in the direction of the livery car, startling the livery driver, which resulted in evasive actions that led to the accident. WCM represented a black car dispatch company and the sole legal theory against the base was that they were vicariously liable for the acts of the driver on a theory of respondeat superior. After 7 days of jury selection, the defendants settled with plaintiff and resolved the liability dispute amongst the defendants over the course of a two-day binding arbitration. While fault for the accident was apportioned between the two drivers, WCM proved that the base was not an employer for the purposes of vicarious liability, resulting in a complete win for WCM’s client. Previous Next Contact

News No Foul Called Against City for Cracked Basketball Court (NY) May 23, 2018 < Back Share to: In Philius v. City of New York, plaintiff alleged he was injured while playing basketball on an outdoor basketball court owned by the defendants New York City Housing Authority and the City of New York. Plaintiff tripped on a crack in the surface of the court. NYCHA moved for summary judgment arguing, among other points, that the plaintiff's action was barred by the doctrine of primary assumption of risk. The Supreme Court denied NYCHA's motion, and NYCHA appealed. The Appellate Division, Second Department found that pursuant to the doctrine of primary assumption of risk, a voluntary participant in a sporting or recreational activity ‘consents to those commonly appreciated risks which are inherent in and arise out of the nature of the sport generally and flow from such participation.’ Although cracks on the court are not necessarily commonly appreciated risks, in support of its motion, NYCHA submitted, among other things, a transcript of the plaintiff's testimony, as well as photographs of the subject court. The plaintiff, who was 19 years old at the time of the accident and an experienced basketball player, testified that he “grew [up] playing on [the subject] court,” and that he was aware of the presence of cracks in the surface of the court prior to his accident. The plaintiff also indicated that he was previously aware of the particular crack over which he tripped. The Court held NYCHA demonstrated that it did not violate its duty to exercise ordinary reasonable care to protect the plaintiff from concealed, or unreasonably increased risks, and that the plaintiff assumed the risk of injury by voluntarily participating in a basketball game on the outdoor court despite his knowledge that doing so could bring him into contact with an open and obvious crack in the playing surface. In opposition, the plaintiff argued that he did not assume the risk of having his foot stuck in a crack when playing basketball.” The plaintiff submitted the affidavit of a licensed professional engineer, who opined that the cracked pavement constituted a longstanding defective condition in a very advanced state of disrepair. In reply, NYCHA argued that the prominent and visible nature of the cracked surface of the basketball court only supports its contention that the plaintiff voluntarily assumed any risk of injury arising from the game. The Second Department found NYCHA’s argument persuasive and overturned the lower court’s decision and granted summary judgment for NYCHA. Thanks to Paul Vitale for his contribution to this post and please write to Mike Bono with any questions. Previous Next Contact

News Summary Judgment Without Deposition discovery Permitted In NY Labor Law Case September 9, 2022 < Back Share to: Courts often deny early summary judgment motions on the basis that they are premature pending completion of discovery on the issues in dispute. In Lapota v. PPC Commercial, LLC, the Appellate Division, First Department took a different approach in examining a trial court’s decision to deny plaintiff’s early motion for summary judgment as to his Labor Law §240 (1) claim against the defendant. The Court based its determination on affidavits of the plaintiff and his co-worker which stated that plaintiff’s accident occurred when an unstable ladder he was using, which was missing rubber feet, shifted and caused plaintiff to fall. The work performed by the plaintiff was covered under Labor Law section 240 (1). In reversing the lower court’s decision, the First Department rejected defendant’s argument that plaintiff’s motion was premature since depositions had not been taken. The Court reasoned that though depositions were not taken, summary judgment was not precluded since the defendant failed to show that discovery might lead to facts that would support its opposition to the motion and that facts essential to its opposition were exclusively within the knowledge of the plaintiff. The Court did not agree with defendant’s argument that plaintiff’s deposition testimony might further illuminate issues raised by the affidavits. The Court reasoned that mere hope that evidence sufficient to defeat summary judgment may be uncovered during discovery was insufficient to defeat summary judgment. This case serves as a reminder of the vulnerability of defendants under the Labor Law and the importance of conducting prompt discovery in Labor Law cases where the possibility of early motion practice exists. Please contact John Diffley with any questions. Previous Next Contact

News “Use Soft Words and Hard Arguments.” — English Proverb. April 10, 2020 < Back Share to: Want to learn the techniques mediators use to get a deal done? Want to prepare more effectively for mediating your case? Join us for a CE/CLE Presentation entitled Behind the Curtain: An Insider’s Guide to Mediation on Thursday, April 16, 2020 at 4:00 pm. Partner Dennis will share some of the insights developed while he studied how to become a mediator at the Center for Advance Dispute Resolution in Washington, DC., and while representing clients at mediations over the years, The course is designed for lawyers, insurance professionals, including brokers, agents and other claims professionals. Please contact Chelsea Rendelman if you would like to register for this event. Previous Next Contact

News School Not Liable for Unanticipated Acts of Student (NY) August 22, 2012 < Back Share to: The Appellate Division, Third Department, has recently reaffirmed the Court of Appeals 2010 decision in Brandy B. v Eden Cent. School Dist., which itself "reaffirmed the principle that a school will generally not be held liable for the unanticipated acts of a third party toward a student" even when those acts may have been planned by the third party. In Geywits v Charlotte Val. Cent. Sch. Dist., the plaintiffs commenced separate actions against the Charlotte Valley Central School District, alleging that they were sexually abused as a result of the school’s negligent supervision. The plaintiffs were first-grade students attending the school, which housed students from pre-kindergarten through twelfth grade. Plaintiffs alleged that the school negligently supervised the students, allowing them to walk unattended from the cafeteria to the bathroom. James Quigley, a high school sophomore, allegedly abused the plaintiffs on multiple occasions in bathroom stalls while the plaintiffs walked unattended. While recognizing the unfortunate nature of the case, the court ruled that the school was entitled to summary judgment because it had no prior notice of similar conduct on the part of Quigley or any other third party. There was no prior notice or indication that Quigley would commit this type of act. It was demonstrated that Quigley “was a good student, had no significant or recent disciplinary history, and had no prior instances of sexually inappropriate or physical contact.” The Court also noted that the school was not on notice simply because the plaintiffs returned late to class on a few occasions, “especially when they explained their lateness by saying that the group of them stopped at the bathroom.” Finally, the court held that the general rule that schools are not liable for unanticipated acts of a third party toward a student was not limited to “circumstances where the injury-producing conduct was impulsive, such as fellow students knocking into one another or throwing objects.” The court found that even planned conduct could be unanticipated from the viewpoint of a school. Thanks to Steve Kaye for his contribution to this post. If you would like more information, please write to mbono@wcmlaw.com .   Previous Next Contact

News Children's Sporting Event Disturbance Lands Dad on TV July 10, 2012 < Back Share to: We’ve all been to children’s sporting events when tempers flare perhaps more than they should and parents sometimes lose their “filter.” The story told in Rossi v. CBS Corp should serve as a cautionary tale and a reminder to all to keep the games in perspective. In 2006, Mr. Rossi was an assistant coach of his son’s Little League baseball team for ten to twelve year olds. His son’s team, the White Sox was undefeated when it played the undefeated Red Sox. After the game, which the Red Sox won, the boys lined up to shake hands. At that point, Mr. Rossi observed what he perceived as a threatening maneuver by a Red Sox player towards his son, the White Sox pitcher. Witnesses claim that Mr. Rossi used some choice words on the perceived attacker and may have even advanced on the player. As a result of the incident, Mr. Rossi was suspended from coaching and restricted from attending games for two weeks. The incident might have otherwise gone unnoticed, but it was anonymously reported to CBS, who dispatched a reporter to investigate during a rematch of the teams just days later. Mr. Rossi did not like the news coverage that ensued and sued for defamation. The court found that the incident was a matter of “public concern,” i.e. violence erupting at youth sporting events. Thus, the court found that the plaintiff had to meet the standard of actual malice. In other words, the plaintiff had to prove that the statement was false and that at the time made, the speaker knew that it was false or stated it in reckless disregard for the truth. The plaintiff could not vault either of these proof burdens, and summary judgment was affirmed. The moral of the story is that, in this day and age, you never know when you can become the 6 o’clock news item of the night. A calm head and cool approach could be best. For more information, contact Denise Fontana Ricci at dricci@wcmlaw.com . Previous Next Contact

News NY Courts to Begin Adjudicating Non-Essential Matters on 4.13.20 April 10, 2020 < Back Share to: As we delve into our second month of COVID-19 restrictions, social distancing, and closed courts, we have been monitoring court updates throughout NY, NJ and PA. Our April 3, 2020 update is linked here. On April 9, 2020, J. Marks, the Chief Administrative Judge in NY, issued an updated indicating that, effective April 13, 2020, Courts will work remotely to address pending, non-essential matters. Specifically, the Courts will look to decide pending motions, conference pending, non-essential matters, and resolve pending discovery disputes. The Courts will not be accepting new filings yet, with the implication being, the Courts will address pending backlog before "opening the floodgates" of new motions and other filings which have been piling up over the past several weeks. Hopefully, this Order represents the first step toward a return to normalcy in the coming weeks. In the interim, we'd like to wish a Happy Passover and a Happy Easter to all who celebrate. Previous Next Contact