ANOTHER OUTSTANDING RESULT FOR TRIAL ATTORNEY, NISSIM ABAEV, ESQ . THE FOLLOWING SPEAKS FOR ITSELF!!!! AS PUBLISHED IN THE NEW YORK JURY VERDICT REPORTER
Verdict (P) $250,000
Court Bronx Supreme
Judge Ben R. Barbato
Nissim Abaev, Sacco & Fillas, LLP, Astoria, NY
Robert J. Sambrato, Law Office of John Trop, Yonkers, NY
Facts & Allegations
On May 16, 2012, plaintiff Jacquelyn Denis, 38, a receptionist, was driving west on 31st Avenue in Astoria, Queens. As she crossed 30th Street, a minivan driven by Kok Wah Fong broadsided her car. Denis hurt her back and shoulder.
Denis sued Fong, alleging he was negligent in operating his motor vehicle. She contended that Fong ran a red light, causing the crash and injuring her.
Fong contended Denis ran a red light and caused the accident.
bulging disc, thoracic; supraspinatus muscle/tendon, tear
A couple of days after the crash, Denis went to her primary care physician with pain in her back and shoulder. She later had MRIs done, which revealed bulges in her T10-11 and T11-12 intervertebral discs and a tear of her left shoulder supraspinatus.
Her doctor recommended physical therapy, which she went to two to three times a week for a couple of months.
An expert in pain management said in a report that her injuries were causally related to the crash. The expert also opined that she had a 50 percent decrease in range of motion in the shoulder and recommended she have surgery to repair it. She has problems raising her arm up to grab things and her injuries make it difficult for her to do daily tasks, like get dressed and care for her son.
Denis sued for damages for pain and suffering.
An expert orthopedist and an expert radiologist for Fong opined that Denis’ injuries were all degenerative and the radiologist said they were not caused by the crash. The orthopedist also found a decrease in range of motion in her left shoulder but said her injuries were due to the crash, but that they had resolved. The orthopedist said the left shoulder injury was degenerative but her right shoulder was perfect.
The jury rendered a verdict for the plaintiff and awarded Denis $250,000.
$250,000 plaintiff’s total award
Demand None reported
Allstate Insurance Co. for Fong
Trial Length: 1 Day
Jury Deliberations: 1 Hour
Jury Poll: 6-0 (all questions)
Jury Composition: 1 male, 5 female
Antonio Ciccone, M.D., pain management, Belleville, NJ (Nissim Abaev) (submitted report)
Jessica F. Berkowitz, M.D., radiology, Port Chester, NY (Robert J. Sambrato) (submitted report)
Jonathan D. Glassman, M.D., orthopedics, Mineola, NY (Robert J. Sambrato) (submitted report)
EXACERBATION AND AGGRAVATION are terms used interchangeably to describe a worsening of a medical condition. These type of personal injury matters are the most difficult to prosecute unless you are the” Rising Star of Super Lawyers”, Nissim Abaev. Esq. who obtained a THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND ($300,000.00) DOLLAR verdict from a Supreme Court: Queens County jury. The last offer on the case was $20,000.00 and did not change throughout the trial where the primary defense was: that all injuries and disability pre-existed from a prior accident; our client previously underwent a reconstructive surgery, procedures, and extensive therapy; and that any present complaints arose from the pre-existing underlying degenerative conditions. An excellent advocate, Nissim, had the difficult task to meticulously present and distinguish the evidence and injuries to show that the acute injuries did in fact exist from the subject accident; and, more importantly, the chronic conditions were in fact exacerbated and aggravated by the subject accident. In sum, the jury ended up finding by their verdict that the subject accident was the substantial factor in causing new injuries and disability i.e. the acute injuries, and it was the substantial factor in exacerbating and aggravating the chronic injuries notwithstanding the fact that our client sustained only Four Hundred ($400.00) Dollars in property damage to his motor vehicle. It was artfully argued to the jury by Nissim which returned such a significant award to our client. Congratulations to Nissim!
Senior Trial Attorney, Wesley Glass, Esq. is displaying “PURE G.R.I.T.” at Sacco & Fillas. Notwithstanding his recent successful results, Wesley does not sit on his laurels. Wesley resolved the firm’s oldest file in Supreme Court: Queens County which survived multiple appeals and a parade of motion practice. It now fell in the lap of Wesley to prepare this matter for trial and to take it to verdict. With his tenacity and initiative, this Labor Law matter consisting of a decade worth of documents, was fully prepped, all the evidence and witnesses were perfectly lined up to cause a full disposition for One Million Fifty Thousand Dollars notwithstanding the twelve CDs of surveillance video of our client. Two weeks later with guts and resilience, Wesley appeared in Supreme Court: New York County fully prepared to commence a significant personal injury matter trial against the NYCTA; and, again because of his PURE GRIT this matter resolved for Two Million Seven Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars. With that being said, Wesley will be appearing on July 31, 2017 in Supreme Court: Suffolk County to commence his next trial. A true trial attorney!!!
At Sacco & Fillas the attorney with the “Golden Touch” is Senior Trial Attorney, Wesley Glass, Esq. The recent verdict from a Supreme Court: Queens County jury illustrates that with Wesley’s touch on evidence and the cross examination of two (2) defendants and three (3) independent witnesses during trial convinced the jury to find the target defendant 100% responsible for the motor vehicle accident notwithstanding the targeted defendant’s opinion that the case was totally defensible as well as the Court’s opinion during the trial that defendant was correct in their position and Wesley should accept the One Hundred Thousand ($100,000.00) Dollars offer. With his touch and his touch only, the matter resolved for One Million Five Hundred Thousand ($1,500,000.00) Dollars; more importantly, Wesley is the driving force at the firm by overseeing the firm’s complex matters where with his participation as the trial attorney, preparing the matter for trial, and with his laying out the trial strategy within the past few months approximately Five Million ($5,000,000.00) Dollars in personal injury matters have resolved; Other recent notable settlements Wesley was responsible for a Seven Hundred Fifty ($750,000.00) Dollars settlement for a construction worker injured at a construction site and a One Million Five Hundred Thousand ($1,500,000.00) Dollars settlement for pedestrian struck by a motor vehicle during work.
APPELLATE PRACTICE: RECENT PUBLISHED DECISIONS FROM THE SUPREME COURT: APPELLATE DIVISION SECOND DEPARTMENT REVERSING SUPREME COURT: NASSAU COUNTY AND QUEENS COUNTY ORDERS
Congratulations to Ying Hua Huang, Esq on the Koutsoumbis Matter and Jeremy Ribakove, Esq. who argued the Valerio Matter before the Court.
At Sacco & Fillas we pride ourselves on the fact that many of our cases are referred by other attorneys. As attorneys, the greatest compliments we receive are referrals from our peers; whether the attorneys do not offer legal services in our practice areas or they are attorneys who practice within the same areas but they may not have the resources, experience or the aptitude.
In fact, today we were able to resolve a personal injury matter for One Million Five Hundred Thousand ($1,500,000.00) Dollars for a pedestrian struck by a motor vehicle who was referred to our firm by an attorney who specialized in personal injury law. At the time of the referral, the referring attorney understood the magnitude of the matter because of the serious injuries sustained by the client and the fact that the client was incapable of returning to work. It was a great honor that the attorney entrusted our firm with his complex and serious case.
Question: What did Sacco & Fillas do that the referring attorney did not do to produce this great result?
1) The referring attorney did not sue the driver’s employer. The referring attorney commenced an action against the owner of the motor vehicle and the driver only. The matter was in suit for over two (2) years before it was referred to our firm.
We instantly determined that the driver was in the course of employment, and, we immediately commenced an action against the driver’s employer before the statute of limitations expired under the theory of “respondent superior.” The employer paid One Million ($1,000,000.00) Dollars of the settlement.
2) We retained an expert for a rehabilitation evaluation to determine a Life Care Plan Evaluation to assess the specific extent to which the client’s disabilities impede his ability to demonstrate independent living skills and handle activities of daily living, as well as outline the costs associated with these limitations.
3) We also retained the services of an economist. The purpose of retaining an economist is to provide as evidence an objective projection of the economic loss arising from the injuries. The factors that are considered are wages, fringe benefits, work expenses, future Life Care costs, future earnings and cost increases. The full extent of the damages could not be assessed without the evidence produced by the rehabilitation expert and the economist.
At Sacco & Fillas it is with great pride that we accept attorney referrals on a daily basis. Thank you.
Commercial Team: Mortgage Fraud Litigation
542A Realty, LLC v. Zinnanti, et al. This complex commercial/real estate litigation file was dear to the firm where we were retained to save elderly sisters from losing their home and sole asset from a foreclosure action that all arose from fraud. A loss would have devastated our clients. We were on a mission to make sure that would never happen.
Moreover, this case was referred to our office from a colleague who litigated the case for numerous years, and he tapped our firm to take it over for pre-trial motions and trial.
Luigi Brandimarte, Esq.; Mathew Beckwith, Esq. and Christopher DelCioppio, J.D.; did their exceptional part between digesting boxes of files from day one to embarking on a never ending motion practice journey up to prepping and completing a full bench trial with post-trial briefing. In the end, we were victorious and preserved the sanctity of our clients. This feat was impossible without the synchronicity of this litigation team. Great job!!
Vehicle Traffic Law Section 1214 requires the safe exiting of motor vehicles at all times. Bicyclist use the term “Dooring” or “Door Prize” for a traffic collision when they are struck by an opening door. Today our own trial attorney, Nissim Abaev, Esq. requested a jury in Supreme Court: Kings County to give our bicyclist client who received a “Door Prize” an award on top of his “prize” notwithstanding the defense maintaining the door was opened only 3 to 5 inches so the bicyclist struck the door as a result of his own negligence; and, furthermore, plaintiff was not wearing a helmet, and all the diagnostic testing was negative so the bicyclist could not meet the serious injury threshold under New York Law so the case should be dismissed on multiple grounds. However, Nissim “doored” the defendant by striking the defendant with an award of $155,000.00 for our client. Great job!!!
A “hit in the rear accident” is where the front of a motor vehicle crashes into the rear of another motor vehicle. For purposes of determining the cause of the accident, the motor vehicle that struck the motor vehicle in the rear is predominantly found 100% at fault or it will be found mostly at fault ; or, at minimum, some percentage at fault since it failed to maintain a proper distance between the motor vehicles to avoid the accident no matter what the circumstances EXCEPT for the Sacco & Fillas, LLP client who was fully vindicated of any fault by a Supreme Court: Kings County jury today notwithstanding the fact she struck the motor vehicle in the rear. Senior Trial Attorney at Sacco & Fillas, Lamont Rodgers, Esq. obtained the unanimous verdict by the jury who found the defendant 100% at fault; and, in return the full policy of $100,000.00 was tendered. The insurance carrier had this matter marked no pay at all times until Lamont hit this verdict in the rear!!! POW, an Amazing result.
According to MERRIAM-WEBSTER.COM, the definition of a trial lawyer: a lawyer who engages chiefly in the trial of cases before courts of original jurisdiction. According, to Sacco & Fillas the definition of a trial lawyer: is a lawyer who is handed a file at 4:00 p.m. to commence jury selection at 10:00 a.m., (as a result of an emergency), and comes back with a unanimous verdict for $100,000.00 where the client would have been more than happy with $10,000.00 to settle……. that lawyer is no other than Wesley Glass, Esq. Senior Trial Attorney at Sacco & Fillas.