After a full consolidated matrimonial and family offense trial in Supreme Court: Queens County, a judgment was granted in favor of our client for divorce; sole legal and physical custody of the children; an order of protection; the spouse was denied any visitation; and the Court further awarded maintenance and child support above the guidelines. Congratulations to Patricia Lynch, Esq. for this outstanding result!!
Supreme Court: Appellate Division: Second Department reversed Supreme Court: Queens County Order granting Defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denying our motion for sanctions for spoliation of evidence. Kudos to Adam Nichols, Esq on a phenomenal result. Great job, Adam!!
http://www.nycourts.gov/…/handdow…/2017/Decisions/D53876.pdf
SACCO & FILLAS – PROUD PLATINUM SPONSOR OF THE 2017 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SETTLEMENT PURCHASERS IN LAS VEGAS NEVADA
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.
http://www.nycourts.gov/report…/3dseries/2017/2017_03162.htm
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.
TEAMWORK
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!!
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.
ADVERSE POSSESSION is a method of acquiring title to real property by possession for a statutory period under certain conditions, viz: proof of non-permissive use which is actual, open and notorious, exclusive, adverse, and continuous for the statutory period.
Congratulations to our commercial team for resolving an adverse possession claim after approximately 5 years of litigation where our clients successfully received due compensation for their half interest in a residential home in Astoria notwithstanding the fact that the occupants were in possession since 1983 of the subject property claiming all the above elements were completely satisfied.
APPELLATE PRACTICE:
RECENT PUBLISHED DECISIONS FROM SUPREME COURT: APPELLATE DIVISION FIRST DEPARTMENT REVERSING SUPREME COURT: BRONX COUNTY AND NEW YORK COUNTY IN BOTH INSTANCES:
Ampofo v. Bryd 2016 NY Slip Op 08023
http://www.nycourts.gov/report…/3dseries/2016/2016_08023.htm
and
Gomez v. Davis 2017 NY Slip Op 00090
http://www.nycourts.gov/report…/3dseries/2017/2017_00090.htm
Great Job by Sacco & Fillas attorneys’ Ying Hua Huang, Esq. and Jeremy Ribakove, Esq. respectively. We are committed not to let any bad Judgment or Order stand against our client. We finish the fight. Thank you Ying Hua and Jeremy for the extra effort and the commitment to our Credo.
Sacco & Fillas thanks three of our personal injury paralegals Mercedes Arias, Laura Munoz and Danielle M. Kuchinskas that displayed great teamwork on recent files. Once a file was marked final for trial they prepped each file to perfection for our attorneys to finalize and execute. As a result of their diligence, on the eve trial, without the cases reaching the trial part, the following matters were resolved: and, we know without the correct prep, trial books, lining up the witnesses, the experts, supplementing pleadings, supplementing discovery exchanges, subpoenas; examining the subpoenaed documents etc……this never would have happened. Excellent!
Policy and excess policy fully tendered to victim of a pedestrian knock down: $2,250,000.00
Policy and excess policy fully tendered to victim of a motor vehicle accident: $1,250,000.00
Notwithstanding damaging video surveillance to laborer injured on a construction site: $1,400,000.00
Notwithstanding Fire Engine responding to emergency to motorcyclist struck by the fire engine: $235,000.00
Supermarket patron falls at entrance of store he attended many times for improper design of the entrance: $650,000.00
Slip and fall on ice for the improper removal of snow: $265,000.00
Slip and fall on ice for failure to repair drain pipe: $750,000.00
Slip and fall from water dripping from ceiling: $295,000.00
Improper set up of equipment fell on claimant: $227,500.00
Improper set up of stairwell at construction site: $222,500.00
Side swipe accident claimant had multiple prior accidents: $325,000.00