A Decades-Long Legacy Of Providing Top-Notch Litigation And Defense Services To Businesses And Licensed Professionals

Verdicts And Settlements

2025

Schenectady County Supreme Court/Thomas D. Buchanan/Summary Judgment Granted. This is a personal injury case involving a slip and fall on ice. The plaintiff was a resident of a condominium community in Rotterdam, New York. She claimed that she slipped and fell on ice in the parking lot while walking to her car. She sued the community board, the property management company for the community and the snow removal contractor. The community board and property management company had cross-claimed against the snow removal contractor for indemnification and contribution and the snow removal contractor had made similar claims against the property management company and community board. The snow removal contractor was only required to respond to the community automatically in the event of snow fall of a certain depth. Furthermore, the community had not opted for automatic salting of the premises so all salting had to be requested. On the day in question, there was no snowfall and there had not been for several days. The morning of the fall, the community did reach out to request that the snow removal contractor come and salt the premises. The snow removal contractor was on site within 45 minutes of the initial request, but plaintiff’s fall happened during that 45-minute period. The property management company representative testified that a response time of up to two hours was acceptable. Defendant snow removal company made a motion for summary judgment on three fronts: one to dismiss plaintiff’s claims against it, one to dismiss the crossclaims of the board and management company and one for defense and indemnification in accordance with the contractor’s claims against the board and management company. In response to defendant’s motion, plaintiff conceded that the snow removal contractor had no liability to her. The board and management company opposed the remainder of the snow removal contractor’s motion contending that the snow removal contractor had breached the contract and that they were entitled to indemnification or, at a minimum, that questions of fact existed that precluded summary judgment. The Court found that the snow removal contractor had met its duty under the contract and that the community board and management company were not entitled to indemnification. It further found that, under the language of the contract, the snow removal company was entitled to defense and indemnity and ordered the community board and property management company to pay the snow removal company’s attorneys’ fees and costs.
Warren County Supreme Court/ Hon. Martin D. Auffredou/Summary Judgment Granted. This is a personal injury case involving a slip and fall on snow and ice. Plaintiff was an employee of a local hospital and was leaving the hospital in the early morning hours after her shift was over. She had parked her car in the employee lot and while walking between two cars, stepped on a mound of snow and slipped and fell. Plaintiff’s injury, a fractured ankle, did not meet the grave injury threshold and as such she could not sue the hospital. The sole defendant was the company who provided snow removal services to the hospital. As a third party contractor, the snow removal company could only be held liable to the plaintiff under certain circumstances and the sole issue on the motion was whether the snow removal contractor made the condition of the parking lot worse through negligent performance of its work. The last work performed by the contractor prior to plaintiff’s fall had been two days prior during a snow storm. The contract between the hospital and the snow removal company specifically stated that the hospital was expected to cooperate in moving vehicles during snow removal activities and that occupied areas would not be cleared. However, the employee lot was occupied at the time these services were provided and as such the contractor was only able to clear the drive lanes and open areas. They also spread salt which, due to the way the salt was distributed, was deposited under and between vehicles. Relying on the language of the contract, defendant argued that it had met its duty to provide services to the hospital and that, in any case, nothing that it did either created the condition on which plaintiff slipped or made it worse. In response, plaintiff produced a weather expert in an attempt to raise a question of fact as to whether the actions of the contractor exacerbated the snow mound that plaintiff slipped on. The court found that plaintiff’s arguments were based upon pure speculation and that she therefore failed to raise a question of fact. Summary judgment was granted to the defendant.
Appellate Division Third Department/Index No CV-23-2035/Motion to Dismiss Upheld. This appeal addressed the applicability of Public Health Law § 2801-d to assisted living residences and was a case of first impression for the Third Department. Article 28 of the Public Health law governs skilled nursing facilities, otherwise known as nursing homes, and other residential health care facilities. In particular § 2801-d creates a cause of action against nursing homes for the violation of a resident’s rights. The question before the trial court, and again before the Appellate Division was whether that law could be applied to create a cause of action against assisted living residences as well. The question had never been addressed by the Third Department, but both the Second Department and Fourth Department had issued decisions on the issue. The Second Department had found that the statutory cause of action was not applicable to assisted living while the Fourth Department found that it was. Relying on the Second Department’s reasoning and a close reading of the applicable statutory language, defendant moved, pre-answer, to dismiss plaintiff’s cause of action under § 2801-d. Plaintiff attempted to amend the complaint, but defendant persisted in its motion, which was ultimately granted by the trial court. The Third Department heard oral argument wherein the plaintiff argued that the statutory language was not absolute and the nature of the facility was a question that had to be determined through discovery before it could be decided whether § 2801-d applied. Defendant argued that the statutory language was very clear and explicitly did not apply to assisted living residences. Defendant further argued that nature of the facility had already been determined by the Department of Health through its licensing processes and that the Court had no power to undermine or countermand that determination. The Third Department ultimately sided with the defendant and the Second Department finding that §2801-d was not applicable to assisted living residences.

2024

Clinton County Supreme Court, New York/Hon. Allison McGahay- Defense Verdict-
This medical malpractice case involved an alleged failure to diagnose and treat the plaintiff’s decedent’s heart attack in the emergency department. The plaintiff and decedent presented to the defendant emergency department at 4:09 am, where the decedent was immediately triaged and given a room in the emergency department. At 4:33 am, twenty-four minutes after presenting to the triage desk, the decedent suffered sudden cardiac arrest and was pronounced dead after roughly forty minutes of resuscitative efforts were unable to restore a normal cardiac rhythm. The plaintiff alleged that the decedent and plaintiff had both reported to the triage nurse that they believed the decedent was having a heart attack and was experiencing chest pain, and argued that if the decedent had been entered into the chest pain protocol and administered some combination of aspirin, heparin, nitroglycerine, and/or beta blockers, the decedent would have had a substantial chance at a better outcome. The plaintiff requested $11 million during closing arguments. The jury deliberated for one hour and forty-five minutes before returning with a defense verdict.
Columbia County Supreme Court/Hon. Richard Mott/Defense Verdict – This medical malpractice action alleged improper reduction and alignment of plaintiff’s comminuted, spiral distal tibial fractures, and improper installation of a distal tibial plate and screws to treat plaintiff’s traumatic injury. The fractures failed to unite for 3 months following surgery performed by the defendant orthopedic surgeon. The defendant orthopedic surgeon properly reduced, aligned, and installed the stabilizing hardware. Due to the nature and extent of the injury, union was not expected within three months. Plaintiff claimed that a second surgery was necessitated by the alleged negligence of the defendant surgeon and that he experienced multiple medical complications which could have been avoided had the initial surgery been performed properly. Following revision surgery three months post-injury, with removal of the previous hardware and installation of an intramedullary nail performed by another orthopedic surgeon, the comminuted fractures united after six months. In the interim between the second surgery and union, plaintiff developed a DVT which required protracted anticoagulant therapy, a wound infection requiring long term antibiotics, and healing complications with the wound.Plaintiff claimed he continues to experience periodic knee pain, is unable to stand for prolonged periods without pain, and is unable to run any longer. Plaintiff was a former jogger and physically active prior to the injury and surgeries. Plaintiff sought $750,000 for past & future pain and suffering during closing arguments. The jury returned a defense verdict within an hour of receiving the case to deliberate.
Rensselaer County Supreme Court/Hon. Richard J. McNally, Jr./Defense Verdict- This medical malpractice action alleged a failure to properly perform a neurological examination of the plaintiff by the defendant emergency medicine physician. The plaintiff presented to the emergency department via EMS with complaints of lower extremity weakness and inability to stand, resulting in multiple falls at home. The plaintiff was promptly seen by the defendant physician, who determined that transfer to a tertiary care center was needed for emergent MRI and neurosurgical examination. The plaintiff alleged the defendant physician requested that he stand during the neurological examination and assisted him in doing so, resulting in the plaintiff falling and suffering a laceration and open dislocation of the left 4^th and 5^th toes, and fracture of the 5^th toe. During the subsequent hospitalization, the wound became infected requiring three surgical procedures ending with the amputation of the plaintiff’s left 5^th toe. The plaintiff requested $300,000 during closing arguments. The jury deliberated for three hours and thirty minutes before returning with a unanimous defense verdict.
Saratoga County Supreme Court/Hon. Richard A. Kupferman/Summary Judgment Granted. This is a medical malpractice case involving an injury to plaintiff’s ureter during a laparoscopic sigmoid colectomy. Risks of the procedure were discussed with plaintiff prior to the procedure, including risk of injury to the ureters, and plaintiff gave informed consent. The procedure was complicated by chronic sigmoid diverticulitis, severe inflammation, scar tissue, and adhesions. No injuries were observed or documented by the defendant surgeons. Plaintiff remained in the hospital for post-operative management, during which time a leak in the ureter was discovered and treated through stent placement. Plaintiffs claimed the injury was the result of either a direct injury to the ureter or improper surgical technique, should have been discovered intraoperatively, and defendants failed to timely diagnose the injury. Defendants argued the injury was the result of a delayed thermal injury from the surgical instruments utilized during the procedure and was not observable intraoperatively as such injuries can take days to manifest. The Court held that plaintiffs’ expert affirmation failed to create a question of fact, as the opinions were conclusory and unsupported by the record. Summary judgment was granted in favor of defendants.
Appellate Division Third Department/ Index No. 535783/Summary Judgment Upheld. This is a dental malpractice matter wherein plaintiff alleged that a root canal was improperly performed and that a foreign body was left in her maxillary sinus. Following a lengthy, nearly five-year, discovery process and filing of the Note of Issue, plaintiff retained new counsel who attempted to reopen discovery. Plaintiff was allowed limited additional discovery, following which both parties made motions for summary judgment on the basis that plaintiff’s claims were barred by the statute of limitations even as augmented by the discovery rule. In response to defendants’ motions plaintiff asserted a new theory of the case alleging that a piece of a dental file was left in one of her teeth during the root canal procedure. She further alleged that she had only discovered the dental file while the motions were pending and as such her claims were timely. The trial court noted the impropriety of plaintiff’s attempt to interject a new theory of the case in response to dispositive motions, but considered her claim nonetheless and still granted summary judgment to the defendants finding that regardless of the actual date of discovery plaintiff had sufficient information to lead to the discovery well before she commenced the lawsuit. Plaintiff appealed this decision, as well as the Court’s failure to fully reopen discovery, to the Appellate Division Third Department. Following oral argument, the Third Department upheld the majority of the trial court’s decision, altering it only to amend that portion of it that awarded costs to the defendants. In its decision, the Third Department adopted defendants’ arguments in finding that the plaintiff had sufficient information to allow for discovery of the alleged foreign object more than a year prior to commencement of the lawsuit and as such her actual discovery of the object at the 11^th hour was immaterial.
Warren County Supreme Court/Hon. Martin D. Affredou/Index No. EF2020-68556/Summary Judgment Granted. This is a Labor Law action involving an alleged construction accident which took place during the construction of a highway garage. While attempting to install a light pole, the plaintiff allegedly sustained catastrophic personal injuries after a portion of the light pole fell from a height and struck the plaintiff in the head. The alleged injuries included a fractured skull, a subdural hematoma, a laceration to his scalp, and a cervical and cervicothoracic fracture subluxation. As a result, the plaintiff allegedly suffered periods of forgetfulness, mood swings, ongoing pain, limitation of movement, and decreased work life expectancy. The plaintiff’s employer, a subcontractor on the project, was brought into the case as a third-party defendant by the defendant contractor upon allegations that the accident was in whole or in part as a result of the third-party defendant’s negligence. Following motion practice, the Court determined that the third-party defendant was entitled to dismissal of the third-party complaint because it did not direct or control the installation of the light pole, and that it was not liable for indemnification or contribution to the third-party plaintiff. This case is currently on appeal.
Bennington Superior Court, Vermont/Hon. Mary Teachout/Defense Verdict
This medical malpractice case involved an alleged failure to diagnose and treat the plaintiff’s ischemic stroke. At the time of treatment, the plaintiff was a twenty-three year old patient with no known risk factors for stroke. The plaintiff presented to the defendant emergency department with altered mental status, and was immediately triaged, laboratory and imaging studies were initiated, and the plaintiff was treated empirically for numerous conditions including spinal cord injury, toxic overdose, bacterial meningitis, and seizure. When his condition continued to deteriorate, he was airlifted to a tertiary care facility. The plaintiff alleged significant deficits resulting from the stroke that impaired his ability to work or live independently, and claimed that if Tissue Plasminogen Activator (“TPA”) had been administered while he was at the defendant facility, he would have had a better outcome. The plaintiff requested $9 million during closing arguments. The jury deliberated for two hours and forty-five minutes before returning with a unanimous defense verdict.

2023

Fulton County/Supreme Court/Hon. Martin Affredou/Premise liability/ Pre-Answer Motion to Dismiss Granted – In this premises liability action plaintiff sued his employer who was also the owner of the premise. Defendant was successful in a pre-answer motion to dismiss, therefore plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed.
Yates County Supreme Court/Hon. Jason L. Cook/Index No. 2022-5121/Summary Judgment Granted. This is a negligence action involving an alleged slip and fall which took place in a parking lot shared by the defendant church and co-defendant food pantry. Plaintiff alleged that defendants’ failure to remove snow and ice in the parking lot caused him to slip and fall. As a result of this incident, plaintiff sustained a trimalleolar fracture of the right ankle requiring open reduction, internal fixation. Plaintiff subsequently developed post-surgical cellulitis of the right ankle which required surgical debridement. Following oral argument, the court determined that all defendants established entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that they neither created nor had actual or constructive notice of the allegedly hazardous condition. The court further held that plaintiff failed to submit sufficient evidence to demonstrate that any dangerous condition even existed at the time of the incident. The case was dismissed, with prejudice. No appeal was taken.
Addison Superior Court, Vermont/Defense Verdict
This environmental contamination case concerned an inadvertent petroleum spill at the plaintiff’s home. The defendant home heating oil delivery company remediated the site to the satisfaction of the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation. However, the plaintiff homeowner subsequently sued alleging that residual contamination on her property was causing her physical injury. In addition, the plaintiff alleged that the occurrence of the petroleum spill had stigmatized her property and reduced its value to potential purchasers. Plaintiff’s last pretrial demand was for $200,000. After a four-day trial, the jury returned a verdict by which it found, as expected, that the defendant’s negligence had caused the spill. However, the jury awarded zero dollars, rejecting all plaintiff’s claimed damages. This verdict was subsequently upheld by the Vermont Supreme Court upon appeal.
Saratoga County Supreme Court/Hon. Dianne Freestone/Defense Verdict – This medical malpractice case involved an alleged injury to vocal cord from intubation. The plaintiff underwent lithotripsy under general anesthesia. The plaintiff was intubated for the procedure. Post-operatively, the plaintiff was unable to speak. Subsequent thereto, she was diagnosed with a torn vocal cord/vocal process/arytenoid. Subsequent to the procedure, she followed with two different otolaryngologists while also undergoing two separate surgeries in an attempt to alleviate her condition. Ultimately, the plaintiff alleged that an intubation injury led to loss of voice. The plaintiff was (and still is) a librarian science teacher at a local school. During closings, plaintiff’s counsel asked for $2.5 million. The alleged injury included a torn/subluxed/fractured vocal cord/vocal process and arytenoid. The plaintiff alleges that these injuries caused loss of voice. At the time of treatment, the plaintiff was 60 years old. She was seeking damages for past and future pain and suffering. The jury rendered a defense verdict.
Otsego County Supreme Court/ Hon. John F. Lambert/ Defense Verdict – This medical malpractice and wrongful death case involved an alleged failure to properly administer anticoagulant medications to an elderly woman with newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant hospital administered too much anticoagulant to the decedent, and failed to properly monitor her blood work, which resulted in blood loss and a hematoma. The plaintiff further alleged that as a result of the blood loss, the decedent became hypotensive and went into kidney failure, resulting in her death ten days later. After twenty-four minutes of deliberations, the Jury returned a unanimous defense verdict.
St. Lawrence Supreme Court/Hon. John T. Ellis/Defense Verdict – During the last week of March 2023, this dental malpractice case was defended by Terence P. O’Connor in St. Lawrence County Supreme Court before the Hon. John T. Ellis. The allegations revolved around a surgical procedure which occurred on 3/4/20 (third molar surgery). Plaintiff s’ complaint included numerous allegations, however the gravamen of the claim was that defendant oral surgeon negligently perforated the lingual plate, partially transecting the lingual nerve. By way of damages, subsequent to the procedure in question, the plaintiff underwent micro neurosurgery in an attempt to reconnect the lingual nerve. Ultimately, the plaintiff alleged that the subsequent surgical repair was unsuccessful, and he was left with chronic pain syndrome throughout his face and lower jaw. Plaintiff was seeking monetary damages for pain and suffering, past and future medical expenses and lost wages. His wife had a separate claim for loss of consortium. It was the defendant’s contention that the surgical procedure was performed in accordance with good and accepted practices in the eld of oral surgery and that the complication was a recognized complication of the procedure. The case was tried for 5 days and included the expert testimony of 6 separate oral surgeons/physicians. The last demand was $500,000. After 2 hours of deliberations, the jury unanimously found in favor of the defendant, dismissing the complaint.
Fulton County Supreme Court/ Hon Rebecca A. Slezak / Index No. EF2015-04014/ Defense verdict/ Premises Liability / Alleged failure to remedy melt/refreeze condition. Defense contended that property manager and snow plow contractor did not violate any duty to plaintiff. The jury deliberated for 3 hours and rendered a defense verdict.
Westchester County Supreme Court/Hon. Lewis J. Lubell/Index No. 55412/2015/Defense Verdict/Medical Malpractice Defense/Alleged that primary care physician and medical practice failed to recognize signs and symptoms of active myopericarditis and failed to direct plaintiff to the hospital where close monitoring would be conducted, further diagnostic testing performed, and cardiac and infectious disease consultations obtained, which would have resulted in earlier treatment and likely would have prevented or significantly diminished the cascade of tragic injuries the young plaintiff sustained including multiple amputations. Defense argued that plaintiff developed fulminant myocarditis the following day, which was not diagnosable the previous day; that the fulminant myocarditis could not have been prevented; and earlier administration of medications would not have altered plaintiff’s course, given the stage of plaintiff’s illness and that there were no medications curative of either the illness causing the myocarditis or the myocarditis itself, only supportive therapies. The jury deliberated for 2 hours and rendered a defense verdict.
Defense Verdict in Medical Malpractice Case – Washington County Supreme Court – 2023
Plaintiff was a 76-year-old woman who presented to our client, a vascular surgeon, with significant peripheral vascular disease-causing claudication, rest pain and some ulceration. Based upon an arteriogram performed by our client, vascular surgery was recommended in the form of an aortofemoral bypass. Plaintiff’s decedent decided she wanted to undergo the procedure after a discussion with our client regarding the nature of the procedure and risks. The procedure was performed on November 7, 2016. From all appearances, the procedure went as expected and circulation to the decedent’s lower extremities was significantly improved. After the first post-surgery day, however, the decedent developed atrial fibrillation and hypotension. An ischemic bowel was suspected. When laparoscopic surgery determined the existence of ischemic colitis, a total abdominal colectomy was performed. Although initially stable, decedent remained unresponsive and carried diagnoses of metabolic acidosis, ischemic colitis, respiratory failure, atrial fibrillation, renal failure, hypokalemia, and hypotension. She passed away the day after the colectomy. Plaintiff claimed that the surgical technique used by our client was contraindicated and resulted in a devascularized bowel. The defense argued that the surgery was appropriate, and that an ischemic bowel was a known risk of the surgery. The jury deliberated for about two hours and rendered a defense verdict..

2021

Schenectady County Supreme Court/Hon. Mark L. Powers/Defense
Verdict/Medical Malpractice – This case involved a wrongful death claim where decedent’s estate alleged that the defendant cardiologist was negligent in clearing the patient for bariatric surgery. Specifically, it was alleged that defendant was negligent as follows: failed to properly workup decedent; failed to order appropriate diagnostic studies; failed to consult with other specialists prior to clearing the patient for surgery; and failed to appropriately consider decedent’s past medical history along with past diagnostic studies including previous cardiological tests and evaluations. Defendant argued that the workup was appropriate, thorough and met the standard of care. The defense further argued that the cause of death was unrelated to decedent’s cardiac condition. The last demand was $800,000. No offers were made. During the course of the trial, 5 separate experts testified as to the issues of standard of care and causation. After a week and a half of trial and approximately 4 hours of deliberations, the jury returned a unanimous verdict in favor of the defendant doctor. No appeals were taken.

2019

Columbia County Supreme Court/Hon. Richard Mott/Index No. 10538/Defense Verdict – premises liability- allegedly defective delivery ramp.
2/25/2019- Ulster County Supreme/ Hon. Christopher Cahill/ Index #14-3676/ dental malpractice case dismissed after opening statements.
Defense Verdict in a Medical Malpractice Case
Plaintiff was a 43-year-old gentleman who appeared at our client’s facility in August 2014 with a severely ingrown toenail. At that time, he was seen by a physician’s assistant who attempted to remove a portion of the toenail unsuccessfully. The plaintiff was then referred to a plastic surgeon at the facility for further treatment. On August 25, 2014, the plaintiff underwent a wedge resection/matrixectomy. Subsequent to that procedure, the plaintiff developed severe pain and swelling. On October 9, 2014, he appeared at the facility for a follow up visit complaining of right calf pain. He was evaluated by a physician’s assistant who diagnosed bilateral venous insufficiency and prescribed support hose. On October 30, 2014, he returned to the facility complaining of severe shortness of breath and ongoing right calf pain and swelling. Upon admission, he was diagnosed with deep vein thrombosis and massive pulmonary embolisms. He remained inpatient at the facility until November 8, 2014, during which time he was treated with anti-coagulants. Allegations – the plaintiff alleged that the employees of the facility were negligent as follows: failure to follow with the plaintiff subsequent to the August 25th surgery; failure to diagnose deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism on October 9, 2014; failure to perform an appropriate workup on October 9, 2014 in order to diagnose deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism including a venous duplex ultrasound (Doppler) and a D dimer test. As a result of the alleged inappropriate follow-up of the plaintiff, it was alleged that the plaintiff suffered massive pulmonary embolisms. Damages – the plaintiff alleges that if the deep vein thrombosis was diagnosed on a timely basis, he would not have developed pulmonary embolisms. The plaintiff further alleges that as a result of the delay in diagnosis, he suffered permanent and chronic injury to his right lower extremity (postphlebitic syndrome); permanent and chronic swelling of his right lower leg; the permanent need for anti-coagulation therapy; kidney failure; cardiac failure; and pulmonary dysfunction. The plaintiff was also seeking monetary damages for economic loss (wages). The trial was commenced on February 19, 2019, and the jury rendered a unanimous verdict (6-0) on February 26, 2019. The jury was comprised of 3 males and 3 females. (Otsego County Supreme Court, February 2019).

2018

Defense Verdict in Petroleum Spill Case
Addison County Vermont Superior Court/Honorable Mary Teachout/Docket No. 103-618 Ancv. The plaintiff was a customer of the defendant heating oil delivery company. In the fall of 2017, the plaintiff decided to replace the heating oil tank at her home, so her son disconnected the oil line and removed the tank. While there was a factual dispute as to whether the plaintiff told the defendant that the tank had been removed, the defendant acknowledges that, because the plaintiff did not have a functioning vent pipe whistle installed, per Vermont regulations, no deliveries to the property should have been made. Still, because the plaintiff was a longstanding customer whom it did not want to go without heat during the cold Vermont winter, the defendant continued to deliver oil to the plaintiff. Not realizing that the oil tank had been removed and that the new tank had yet to be installed, the defendant proceeded to spill 86.9 gallons of heating oil in the plaintiff’s basement. Per Vermont regulations, immediately upon learning of the spill, the defendant retained an environmental cleanup company that remediated the property. While the remediation was concluded to the satisfaction of the State of Vermont, the plaintiff alleged that the value of her property had been significantly reduced, due to the stigma of having been subject to a petroleum spill. In addition, the plaintiff alleged that additional clean-up work was required, that the remediation efforts had caused structural damage to the house, and that she had lost items of personal property as a result of the spill. Finally, the plaintiff alleged that the spill had caused her inconvenience and the loss of her enjoyment of the property. The defendant provided testimony from its employees disputing the plaintiff’s allegations that it had been told that the tank had been removed and explaining why deliveries had continued to the property despite the missing vent pipe whistle. Additional testimony was provided by the supervisor from the environmental remediation company explaining the nature of the remediation e orts. Finally, the defense offered expert testimony from a professional property appraiser who disputed, with the aid of comparables, plaintiff’s contention that the occurrence of the petroleum spill had stigmatized her property. The plaintiff’s last pre-trial demand was for $196,000, while the final offer was for $20,000. After eleven hours of deliberations, the jury returned a verdict in which both defendant and plaintiff were found negligent and to be 50% responsible for the occurrence. However, the jury also concluded that, because of the remediation efforts, the plaintiff had no recoverable damages and rendered an award of $0.00.
Defense Verdict in a Wrongful Imprisonment/Psychiatric Malpractice Case
Plaintiff was involuntarily admitted to defendant hospital’s psychiatry unit. Plaintiff alleged that defendant was negligent in its performance of the statutorily required psychiatric examination and, as a result, wrongfully confined him for more than a week. Defendant contended that it had assessed plaintiff appropriately and that he met the criteria for involuntary admission. Defense verdict. (Columbia Supreme 2018)
02/23/18 – Columbia Supreme/Hon. Richard Mott/Index 2011-2289/defense verdict/wrongful imprisonment-psychiatric malpractice case

2017

04/17/17 – Albany Supreme/Hon. Christina Ryba/Index A00106/2014; tractor trailer accident/settled after 2 plus weeks of trial.
8/25/2017- Albany County Supreme/ Hon. Roger McDonough/ Index #4555-14/defense jury verdict, oral surgery
Defense Verdict in an Anesthesia Case
Plaintiff underwent spinal surgery under general anesthesia. Plaintiff contended that the anesthesia services were performed negligently as follows: that the anesthesiologist/nurse anesthetist pinched the tongue with the endotracheal tube which led to ischemia, loss of circulation and resultant injury to the tongue; and that the injury would not have occurred without negligence. At the time of trial, the judge charged the jury with res ipsa loquitur charge. Defendants contended that the injury to the tongue was a recognized complication of general anesthesia and further contended that the plaintiff had a preexisting injury to his tongue. Defense verdict (Saratoga Supreme, 2017).
Defense Verdict in a Dental Malpractice Case
Plaintiff presented for treatment with a two-week history of pain and swelling of the left third molar. Extraction was recommended. Plaintiff contended that defendants were negligent as follows: the extraction was contraindicated; failed to proceed with a cone beam x-ray; failed to obtain appropriate informed consent; procedure was performed negligently damaging the inferior alveolar nerve and severed the lingual nerve; and failed to refer patient to an oral surgeon. Defendants contended that the surgery was indicated with pain and swelling; cone beam x-ray was not the standard of care; appropriate informed consent was obtained; the procedure was performed in accordance with good and accepted practices; patient left defendants’ care before a referral to an oral surgeon could have been made; and it was defendants’ contention that the nerve was damaged as a result of the local injection. Defense verdict. (Jefferson Supreme, 2017).
Defense Verdict in a Medical Malpractice Case
Plaintiff presented to the emergency room complaining of u-like symptoms. Plaintiff, who had been receiving anticoagulant Coumadin for many years, had a slightly elevated laboratory value related to clotting. Plaintiff was diagnosed with an upper respiratory infection, advised to skip his next dose of Coumadin, and discharged. The following day, plaintiff died of a cerebral hemorrhage. Plaintiff contended that defendants negligently failed to diagnose the hemorrhage and administered medications which exacerbated the bleeding. Defendants contended that the patient was evaluated appropriately, that no further imaging or laboratory studies were indicated based on his complaints, and that the cerebral hemorrhage occurred after the patient’s discharge. Defense verdict (Sullivan Supreme 2017).
Defense Verdict in a Medical Malpractice Case/Sullivan County Supreme Court/Honorable Stephen G. Schick/Index No. 2019-828. Plaintiff alleged that otolaryngologist had failed to timely diagnose plaintiff ’s tumor, resulting in permanent partial facial paralysis and hearing loss. Defense argued that the otolaryngologist frequently and carefully inspected plaintiff’s middle ear cavity for evidence of known disease that previously had been surgically removed, with no abnormalities found, and that subsequent tumor growth at the base of the skull was unforeseen and unpredictable, but properly diagnosed by the otolaryngologist when plaintiff presented with new signs of neurological deficits. Plaintiff ’s injuries were caused by plaintiff ’s disease and not the result of an alleged failure to timely diagnose plaintiff’s subsequent tumor. The jury deliberated for an hour and rendered a defense verdict.

2016

02/08/16 – Albany Supreme/Hon. Kimberly A. O’Connor; Index A00489/2013; defense verdict/dental malpractice – oral surgery – defense verdict

2014

Defense Verdict in a Premises Liability Case
Plaintiff (as an EMS ambulance employee) alleged that our client (a hospital) failed to reasonably take care of its parking lot, resulting in an icy condition which caused plaintiff to slip and fall as she was exiting an ambulance to assist a patient inside the hospital. Plaintiff suffered a severe injury to her shoulder, resulting in frozen shoulder which led her to never being able to work again an EMS person. She also had a Workers’ Compensation lien of over $150,000. In her first deposition, Plaintiff would not admit that it was snowing or precipitating at all on the day of her accident. Finally, at her second deposition she admitted that it was snowing/sleeting/icing her entire ambulance trip to the hospital. Weather records indicated that the storm had allegedly stopped earlier in the day than the time of the fall, so we did not use them in our motion. Plaintiff tried to use the weather records in their opposition to the motion for summary judgment and we countered that plaintiff could not use extrinsic evidence to overcome her own admission that it was snowing. We made a motion for summary judgment based on a storm in progress defense and the Court ruled in our favor, dismissing the action against the hospital. (Ulster County, 2014).

2013

09/2013 – Montgomery County Supreme Court/Hon. Joseph Sise/defense verdict/automobile accident defense
12/2013 – Dutchess County Supreme Court/Hon. Maria Rosa/defense verdict/dental malpractice defense
Defense Verdicts in Cases Involving Dental Management Company
In a case involving multiple jurisdictions, we have successfully defended a dental management company and its owners against allegations of fraud and negligence involving the care and treatment given to children at dental clinics providing dental treatment to children covered by the Medicaid program. It was claimed that the dental management company was liable for alleged unnecessary and inappropriate dental treatment received by the plaintiff children at the dental clinic. In two separate trials, one involving a single plaintiff, and the other involving four plaintiff s, juries rendered defense verdicts in favor of the dental management company and its owners. (Sup. Ct., Onondaga Co., Sept. 2013 and June 2014).

2011

02/2011 – Orange Supreme/Hon. Joseph G. Owen/dental malpractice defense verdict/oral surgery.
06/2011 – Saratoga Supreme/Hon. Thomas D. Nolan/medical malpractice defense verdict/emergency room medicine case.
09/2011 – Hon. Patrick NeMoyer/medical malpractice defense verdict/eye surgery case.
Defense Verdict in A Premises Liability Case
Plaintiff alleged that our client (a restaurant) failed to reasonably take care of its parking lot, resulting in an icy condition which caused plaintiff to slip and fall. Our client refuted these allegations, and the jury rendered a defense verdict. (Schenectady County Supreme Court, March 2011).
Defense Verdict in Dental Malpractice Claim
Plaintiff alleged dental malpractice after he underwent an extraction of teeth numbers 31 and 32 in 2006. Our client refuted those allegations, and a defense verdict was rendered after a two week jury trial. (Orange County Supreme Court, February 2011).
Defense Verdict in A Premises Liability Case
Plaintiff alleged that our client (a lumber yard) failed to protect him from bees which allegedly startled him, causing him to fall. Our client refuted these allegations, and the jury rendered a defense verdict. (Greene County Supreme Court, January 2011). Defense Verdict in Nursing Home Case, Finding No Proximate Cause

2010

06/2010 – Schenectady Supreme/Hon. Vincent J. Reilly, Jr./medical malpractice defense verdict/oral surgery.
09/2010 – Saratoga Supreme/Hon. Thomas D. Nolan/medical malpractice defense verdict/wrongful death/emergency room medicine case.
Defense Verdict Nursing Home Negligence
We represented the nursing home in this medical malpractice case where plaintiff alleged a theory against the facility and co-defendant physician that they failed to diagnose and treat decedent’s congestive heart failure which developed into pneumonia causing a series of complications which ultimately lead to decedent’s death. The jury rendered a 5-1 verdict in favor of the defendants finding that their negligence was not the proximate cause of decedent’s illness or death. (Supreme Court, Schenectady County, June 2010).
Defense Verdict in Case Involving Bus Operation
In this case, plaintiff alleged that the negligent operation of a bus caused her to sustain injury. Plaintiff claimed that she fractured her left wrist as she was walking to her seat on the bus when abruptly the bus moved forward and then suddenly stopped a short distance later, causing her to fall to the ground. Plaintiff contended that the improper operation of the bus caused a sudden, unusual and violent jerk which caused her to fall. The jury rendered a defense verdict in favor of our client. (Supreme Court, Albany County, March 2010).
Defense Verdict in Podiatric Malpractice Suit
This case arises out of a surgical procedure known as a Keller bunionectomy which was performed on plaintiff by our client. Plaintiff alleged that the procedure was improper and that more conservative methods of treatment should have been implemented given plaintiff’s active lifestyle. Plaintiff further alleged that defendant podiatrist failed to properly inform him of alternatives to the procedure. Plaintiff contends as a result of the procedure he has been limited in his ability to walk, negotiate stairs and exercise. Defendant argued that more conservative treatment would not have been an effective treatment option. The jury rendered a defense verdict in favor of our client. (Supreme Court, Fulton County, March 2010).
Defense Verdict In Dental Malpractice Suit Involving Orthodontic Treatment
In this dental malpractice case, plaintiff sought orthodontic treatment from our client who recommended several teeth extractions and upper and lower braces. During the course of treatment, plaintiff developed significant issues regarding her gums, which was diagnosed as periodontal disease. Plaintiff then sought treatment from another orthodontist who changed her course of treatment. Plaintiff alleged that our client did not provide reasonable alternatives to the treatment, did not carry out the treatment plan and failed to address plaintiff’s periodontal issues. Our client argued that he did provide appropriate periodontal care and that plaintiff was comparatively negligent by failing to take care of her oral hygiene and by missing appointments. Defendant also argued that the subsequent treatment was not appropriate. The jury rendered a defense verdict in favor of our client. (Supreme Court, Schenectady County, June 2010).

2009

11/2009 -Onondaga Supreme/Deborah H. Karalunas/medical malpractice defense verdict/gynecologic surgery case.
Defense Verdict In Medical Malpractice OB-GYN Case Resulting In Amputation
We represented one of the defendants in this case, a doctor who performed a total abdominal hysterectomy on plaintiff . Following the procedure, plaintiff developed ischemia in both of her lower extremities and underwent a thrombectomy. During that operation, a fresh blood clot was found which could not be treated. Various blood studies indicated that the plaintiff had the lupus anticoagulant which caused her clotting condition. As a result of the alleged failure to diagnose and treat the plaintiff’s clotting disorder, the plaintiff developed gangrene in her lower extremities resulting in amputation. Plaintiff alleged various acts of negligence against our client, and codefendant, but the jury returned a defense verdict. (Supreme Court, Onondaga County, November 2009).

2008

04/2008 – Albany Supreme/Hon. Thomas J. McNamara/medical malpractice defense verdict/emergency room medicine case/neurologic/stroke.
Defense Verdict In Dental Malpractice Claim Involving Root Canal
We represented the dentist who performed a root canal on plaintiff. Plaintiff alleged that our client was negligent in failing to properly perform the root canal as he did not have the appropriate experience and training to perform a root canal on a calcified tooth and that he was negligent for failing to stop the procedure once he found out that the tooth was calcified, rendering the tooth unusable. Our client refuted these allegations and the jury rendered a defense verdict in favor of our client. (Supreme Court, Saratoga County, January 2008).

2007

10/2007 – Schenectady Supreme/Hon. Richard C. Giardino/medical malpractice defense verdict/laparoscopic surgery.

2006

12/4/06 – Rensselaer Supreme/Hon. Joseph F. Teresi – represented defendants – defense verdict – neurosurgical surgical.
10/10/06 – Schenectady Supreme/Judge Richard Giardano – represented defendant – defense verdict – surgical/medical malpractice.
6/19/06 – Albany Supreme/Judge William E. McCarthy – represented defendant – awarded by jury for past pain and suffering – oral surgery/dental malpractice.
3/6/06 – Schenectady Supreme/Judge Barry D. Kramer – represented defendant defense verdict – oral surgery/dental malpractice.
2/7/06 – Delaware Supreme/Hon. Michael Coccoma – represented defendant – defense verdict – surgical/medical malpractice.
Defense Verdict In Suit Arising From Complications From Neurosurgical Procedure
The plaintiff was diagnosed with a colloid cyst and was referred to our client to determine whether the cyst could be removed endoscopically, who recommended that it could. During the procedure, it was determined that the cyst was inaccessible, so the endoscopy procedure was converted to an open craniotomy. Soon after the surgery, plaintiff suffered a stroke which left him with significant short-term and long-term cognitive impairment, memory loss and brain damage. Plaintiff alleged that our client was negligent in piercing the thalamus during the endoscopic portion of the procedure, failing to convert to the open surgery sooner resulting in complications causing the stroke, and failing to obtain informed consent. The jury rendered a defense verdict in favor of our client. (Supreme Court, Rensselaer County, December 2006).
Defense Verdict In Case Involve OB-GYN-Related Surgery
Plaintiff underwent a laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy performed by our client. Plaintiff claimed that defendant was negligent in deviating from the standard of care in failing to close a portal that was created during the surgery causing plaintiff to sustain a Richter’s hernia and other complications that led to three additional surgeries. Our client argued that he properly sutured the opening and that the Richter’s hernia was a post-surgical complication that occurred when the sutures came apart. The jury rendered a defense verdict. (Supreme Court, Schenectady County, December 2006).
Defense Verdict In Suit Arising From Treatment Of Hand Laceration
In this case, plaintiff injured himself while working with a table saw. Ultimately, plaintiff was diagnosed by our client with a nerve injury and was referred to a hand specialist. He had specialist diagnoses of a laceration of the ulnar nerve in plaintiff ’s left hand and performed an unsuccessful sural nerve graft which left plaintiff with very little use of his left hand. Plaintiff alleged that our client was negligent in failing to diagnose and treat the ulnar nerve injury and in failing to immediately refer plaintiff to a hand surgeon. Ultimately, the jury returned a verdict in favor of our client. (Supreme Court, Delaware County, 2006).
Defense Verdict In Suit Arising From Complications From A Laparoscopic Hysterectomy
The plaintiff had uterine bleeding; doctors performed a laparoscopic assisted vaginal hysterectomy; afterward the plaintiff had small bowel obstruction and sued for surgical and medical malpractice. Our client refuted these allegations and the jury rendered a defense verdict. (Schenectady County Supreme Court, October 2006).
Defense Verdict In Oral Surgery/Dental Malpractice Claim
Plaintiff claimed inadequate surgical endodontic treatment; inadequate apicoectomy; and inadequate informed consent in this oral surgery/dental malpractice matter. Our client refuted these allegations and the jury rendered a defense verdict. (Albany County Supreme Court, June 2006).

2005

7/18/05 – Fulton Supreme/Judge Joseph M. Sise – represented defendant – settled prior to verdict – failure to diagnose/medical malpractice.
4/25/05 – Dutchess Supreme/Judge Thomas J. Dolan – represented defendant – defense verdict – dental malpractice.
4/11/05 – Greene County/Judge George J. Pulver – represented defendant – settled prior to verdict.

2004

11/29/04 – Dutchess Supreme/Judge James D. Pagones – represented defendant – discontinued after jury selection – dental malpractice.
10/25/04 – Sullivan Supreme/Judge Nicholas A. Clemente – represented defendant – settled during jury selection – dental malpractice.
2/9/04 -Montgomery Supreme/Judge Robert P. Best – case settled prior to verdict – medical malpractice.

2003

10/20/03 – Albany Supreme/Judge Bernard J. Malone – dismissed after plaintiff’s proof – medical malpractice.
8/25/03 – Warren Supreme/Judge Richard T. Aulisi – represented defendant – defense verdict – dental malpractice.
7/28/03 – Fulton Supreme/Judge Felix J. Catena – represented defendant – defense verdict – dental malpractice.
1/21/03 – Schenectady Supreme/Judge Vincent J. Reilly – represented defendant – defense verdict – failure to diagnose/medical malpractice.
Defense Verdict In Failure To Diagnose Case
Plaintiff alleged that our client failed to diagnose Crohn’s disease in an infant. Our client refuted these allegations and the jury rendered a defense verdict. (Schenectady County Supreme Court, January 2003).

2002

12/2/02 – Ulster Supreme/Judge Thomas Spargo – represented defendant – settled after several weeks of trial – birth trauma/medical malpractice.
10/15/02 – Broome Supreme/Judge Walter J. Relihan – represented defendant – plaintiff discontinued after close of plaintiff’s proof – failure to diagnose/medical malpractice.
3/4/02 – Fulton Supreme/Judge Robert P. Best – represented defendant – case discontinued prior to verdict – medical malpractice.
1/31/02 – Rensselaer Supreme/Judge James B. Canfield – represented defendant – medical malpractice.

2001

7/27/01 – Columbia Supreme/Judge John Fromer – represented defendant – defense verdict – falldown.
6/15/01 – Montgomery Supreme/Judge Sise – represented defendant – settled before verdict – medical malpractice.
2/26/01 – Schenectady Supreme/Judge Lynch – represented defendant – settled during trial – medical malpractice.
1/24/01 – Saratoga Supreme/Judge Williams – represented defendant- discontinued as against client before going to the jury – medical malpractice.

2000

9/26/00 – Fulton Supreme/Judge Sise – represented defendant – defense verdict – falldown. 9/11/00 – Dutchess Supreme/Judge Hillery – represented defendant – defense verdict – dental malpractice.
6/19/00 – Montgomery Supreme/Judge Brown – represented defendant – medical malpractice.
6/13/00 – Greene Supreme – represented defendant – case settled prior to verdict – medical malpractice.
3/6/00 – Orange Supreme/Judge Berry – represented defendant – case settled prior to trial – medical malpractice.
1/12/00 – Albany Supreme – Bench trial.
Plaintiff alleged that she slipped and fell on ice in the parking lot of our client’s store causing her to sustain a fractured right wrist. At trial, we submitted the responding EMT report that had no mention of ice in the parking lot, and the testimony of the EMT who stated that if ice was present it would have been noted in his report. This evidence was sufficient to establish that there was no dangerous condition in the parking lot and the jury returned a verdict in favor of our client. (Supreme Court, Fulton County, September 2000).

1999

10/12/99 -Albany Supreme/Judge Malone – represented defendant – settled prior to verdict – medical malpractice.
9/21/99 – Orange Supreme – represented defendant – case settled prior to verdict.
7/26/99 – Rensselaer Supreme/Judge McNamara – represented defendant – medical malpractice – defense verdict.
3/22/99 – Albany Supreme/Judge Teresi – represented defendant – defense verdict – medical malpractice.
2/1/99 – Schenectady Supreme/Judge Kramer

1998

10/19/98 – Albany Supreme/Judge Keegan – represented defendant – case dismissed.
9/14/98 – Saratoga Supreme/Judge Williams – represented defendant – case dismissed – medical malpractice.
6/22/98 – Rensselaer Supreme – represented defendant – defense verdict – medical malpractice.
4/20/98 – Albany Supreme/Judge Grafeo – represented defendant – medical malpractice.
3/9/98 -Judge Joseph Teresi/Albany Supreme – represented defendant – settled prior to trial – medical malpractice.
2/23/98 – Judge Ferradino/Fulton Supreme – represented defendant.
1/7/98 – Orange Supreme/Judge Peter Patsalos – represented defendant – defense verdict.

1997

9/4/97 – Warren Supreme/John G. Dier – represented defendant – failure to diagnose – defendant verdict – medical malpractice.

1996

9/23/96 – Albany Supreme/Judge Keegan – represented defendant – medical malpractice/wrongful death – defense verdict.
6/11/96 – Rensselaer Supreme/Judge Teresi – falldown – defense verdict.
3/4/96 – Saratoga Supreme/Judge William Keniry – represented defendant – case settled prior to verdict.
1/8/96 – Saratoga Supreme/Judge Frank B. Williams – represented defendant – defense verdict – medical malpractice/wrongful death.

1995

11/13/95 – Columbia Supreme – represented defendant – case settled prior to verdict.
11/6/95 – Rensselaer Supreme – represented defendant – case settled prior to verdict.
10/10/95 – Rensselaer Supreme/Judge James B. Canfield – represented defendant – defense verdict – auto accident.
7/18/95 – Clinton Supreme/Judge Dawson – represented defendant – defense verdict.
4/10/95 – Columbia Supreme/Judge Connor
2/13/95 – USDC NDNY/Magistrate Ralph W. Smith, Jr. – represented defendant – defense verdict – auto accident/wrongful death.

1994

9/21/94 – Orange Supreme/Judge Owen represented defendant – defense verdict.

1993

7/6/93 – Saratoga Supreme/Judge Dominick J. Viscardi – represented defendant – defense verdict – – medical malpractice.
1/28/93 – Schenectady Supreme/Judge John J. Mycek – represented defendant – defense verdict – medical malpractice.

1992

12/18/92 – Schenectady Supreme/Judge Robert F. Doran – represented defendant – defense verdict – medical malpractice.
5/18/92 – Columbia Supreme/Hon. John G. Connor – represented defendant – case settled prior to verdict medical malpractice.
4/27/92 – Albany Supreme – case settled prior to verdict.

1991

12/9/91 – Albany Supreme/Hon. Harold J. Hughes – snowmobile accident – represented defendant – defense verdict.
6/20/91 – Schenectady Supreme/Judge John M. Mycek – represented defendant – defense verdict.
2/11/91 – Schenectady Supreme – Trial

1990

11/7/90 – Schenectady Supreme/Judge Robert E. Lynch – represented defendant – defense verdict.
10/2/90 – represented defendant – verdict was less than 50 percent of the offer – automobile accident.
9/17/90 – Greene Supreme – represented defendant – defense verdict – automobile accident.
6/11/90 – Albany Supreme/Judge Joseph Harris- represented defendant – defense verdict – case involved allegations of surgical malpractice.
4/23/90 – United States District Court, Northern District of New York – represented defendant.
4/9/90 – premises liability claim – represented defendant – case settle prior to verdict.
3/5/90 – Schenectady Supreme/Hon. Robert Doran – represented defendant – case settled prior to verdict – alleged orthopedic malpractice.

In addition to the foregoing, Terence P. O’Connor has tried numerous administrative hearings to conclusion in front of the Office for Professional Medical Conduct. Moreover, Terry has tried various other jury and non-jury trials in the lesser courts (county, city and town courts). Finally, Terry has also handled numerous Federal Court mediations, arbitrations and early neutral evaluations representing litigations and also serving as a mediator/arbitrator.