Hannum, Feretic, Prendergast & Merlino, LLC

The wins are piling up here at Hannum Feretic Prendergast & Merlino!! Partner Matthew Zizzamia, working with co-counsel, Ken Danielsen of Cipriani & Werner, secured a defense verdict on January 31, 2025 at a damages – only trial before Judge Alison Y. Tuitt in Supreme Court, Bronx County. The plaintiff, represented by Gorayeb & Associates, secured summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) claim, and had 20 months of pre-judgment interest. The plaintiff called five medical experts who testified that the plaintiff’s injuries, and the four surgeries that followed, including a lumbar fusion, along with a seven-figure life care plan, were caused by the accident. The case was defended on the ground that the injuries were not permanent and were not caused by the accident, based on the plaintiff’s inconsistent descriptions of the accident and the extensive surveillance footage of the plaintiff. Importantly, the defense also focused on the total volume of cases involving plaintiff’s counsel and Hannum Feretic Prendergast & Merlino, and the near-ubiquitous involvement of the same medical experts on those cases. The jury returned a defense verdict after one hour, and indicated after the trial that they arrived at the decision in mere minutes. We are very appreciative of the support provided by the management team at AmTrust, who showed real leadership in standing firm against the prospect of a damages trial with multiple surgeries in the Bronx, and provided the support necessary to expose the plaintiff’s true condition through high – quality surveillance, and particularly to help demonstrate the interest of the plaintiff’s experts in the outcome of the case through the collaboration with Ken Danielsen. We are optimistic that this result will provide a counterexample to the prevailing narrative that the outcome of a damages – only trial in the Bronx is a foregone conclusion, as there is no shortage of attentive, thoughtful jurors willing to consider the evidence when presented with careful preparation.

Here to share another great decision by our firm!! Partner, Meredith Bernstein, was successful in opposing the appeal of plaintiff’s counsel from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County denying plaintiff’s summary judgment motion as against the defendants on the issue of Labor Law Sections 240(1) and 241(6) predicated on a violation of 12 NYC RR 23–1.21(b)(4)(ii). In Injai v. Circle F, the plaintiff claimed to have fallen while using a wooden access ladder to move concrete forms from one floor to another. Plaintiff claimed that the ladder wobbled and moved as he was on it, causing him to fall to the ground and sustain injuries. The plaintiff moved for summary judgment on his Labor Law Section 240(1) and 241(6) claims. in opposition to the motion, defendants submitted the affidavit of an expert engineer, who opined that the plaintiff’s accident was not caused by the failure to provide the plaintiff with an adequate safety device, and that the defendants did not violate the relevant provision of the industrial code. The plaintiff appealed the lower court decision which held that issues of fact existed as to the manner in which plaintiff’s accident occurred, and whether the defendants violated the statute. The appellate division agreed with the holding of the lower court and upheld the prior decision.

We are pleased to share that we have received a decision in Westchester County (DaFonseca v Griffon - index no.: 65871/2021) denying the plaintiff summary judgment on his Labor Law Section 240(1) and 241(6) claims. The plaintiff claimed that a 4 x 4 wood form fell upon him from above at the site. Partner, Marla Miller Ostrover, successfully defeated plaintiff’s motion on behalf of the owner and general contractor at a project. Questions of fact were created for the court to deny plaintiff judgment on his Labor Law section 240(1) and 241(6) claims. The court found that questions included where the alleged accident occurred, how the alleged accident occurred, what the plaintiff was doing immediately prior to the accident and whether the plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of his accident. As there was conflicting evidence in the record, including whether the plaintiff himself improperly tacked the wood to the decking above him and/or performed framing work, striking the 4 x 4, causing it to dislodge and fall from above him, there is a question of fact as to whether the defendants failed to provide proper protection to the plaintiff at the job site so as to implicate a violation of the Labor Law.

We are pleased to announce that partner, Ian Lane, was successful in having the Supreme Court, Westchester County case of Yanez v. Monasebian dismissed on motion. in this action, the plaintiff claimed that he was injured when he was struck by a falling lamp, mounted on a lamp post, while working. At the time of the accident, the plaintiff was trimming the grounds near an outdoor lamp post when the top portion of it purportedly fell and struck him on the head, causing him to fall to the ground. Summary judgment for our client, the landowner, was granted on the grounds that the post accident inspection of the lamp post showed that an internal component, installed by the manufacturer and invisible to reasonable inspection, had failed. Since the internal component was not subject to inspection, it was impossible to establish that the homeowner had actual or constructive notice of any defect. The plaintiff could not rely on its res ipsa argument, and our client was granted judgment, dismissing plaintiff’s claims in their entirety.

Hannum Feretic Prendergast & Merlino is excited to announce that partner, Matthew Zizzamia, secured a defense verdict on July 1, 2024, in Supreme Court, Kings County. The Labor Law case brought by Wingate, Russotti, Shapiro, Moses & Halperin was tried before Judge Devin Cohen. The plaintiff, and an eyewitness coworker, testified that the plaintiff was working on a Baker scaffold that unexpectedly collapsed. The defense argued that despite the eyewitness testimony, the version of events offered by the plaintiff was not believable, and that he did not satisfy his burden of proof. The jury deliberated for several hours before returning a verdict in favor of the defendant. We are excited to have secured a favorable result under a fact pattern that looked like a sure bet for the plaintiff in a difficult venue. We are grateful for the assistance provided by appellate counsel, Melissa Danowski of Mauro Lilling Naparty, who helped identify the numerous appealable issues that would have been presented in the event of an adverse result.

We’re hiring!! Seeking attorney with experience handling subrogation cases. Candidate should have conducted depositions and appeared for court conferences. Good communication and writing skills are needed. Candidate should be able to interact with adversary counsel and have the ability to negotiate cases. Contact us!

WE ARE HIRING!! Please contact us if you are an attorney interested in joining a hard working insurance defense firm in a great working environment. Seeking attorneys with experience in premises and Labor Law litigation. Candidate should be able to independently manage tasks and deadlines, have conducted depositions, appeared for court conferences and meet the needs and requirements of our clients. Good communication and writing skills are needed. Contact us if you’re interested!