Representative Cases

• Zagara v Suit-Kote Corporation, et al., Index No. E2022-182 (Sup. Ct., Sullivan County November 1, 2023):

Devika successfully briefed and argued a motion for summary judgment, resulting in the dismissal of a personal injury case against the client, Suit-Kote. Devika established that Suit-Kote did not owe a duty of care to the plaintiff based on the following key points:

Insufficient Pleadings: The plaintiff's pleadings failed to adequately notify the client of the applicability of any Espinal exceptions.

No Unreasonable Risk: Even if the pleadings had asserted a claim under Espinal, my submissions, including an affidavit from the defense expert engineer, demonstrated that Suit-Kote did not create an unreasonable risk of harm. The evidence showed that the alleged dangerous condition developed over time, not due to any action by the client.

The court agreed with the arguments, finding the plaintiff's claims speculative and insufficient to counter the expert's conclusions.

• Loudin v. Unither Manufacturing, et al., Index No.: E201900197 (Sup. Ct., Monroe County April 3, 2023):

  Defense Victory in Scissor Lift Incident

  Devika successfully defended a construction contractor against allegations involving injuries sustained in a height-related fall from a scissor lift. The claims included negligence, Labor Law § 200/240(1), and demands for indemnification and contribution.

  By conducting meticulous depositions of co-defendant witnesses, Devika uncovered critical testimony that absolved her client of responsibility. Notably, the deposition of key witnesses established that her client did not create, contribute to, or maintain the alleged dangerous condition tied to the incident.

  Recognizing the strength of her arguments and the lack of evidence implicating her client, Devika persistently engaged with all involved parties to highlight the baseless nature of the claims. Her consistent follow-up efforts led to a consensus among all parties that the claims were unfounded.

  As a result, plaintiffs and co-defendants voluntarily agreed to discontinue, with prejudice, all claims, third-party claims, and cross-claims against my client. This decisive victory eliminated further litigation exposure and secured dismissal of the case against the client.

• Brongo v. Town of Greece, et al., Index No.: E2019008057 (Sup. Ct., Monroe County August 21, 2023):

  Successfully secured dismissal of the plaintiff’s complaint. The plaintiffs alleged common law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), and 241(6), against client, a construction equipment rental company, alleging that the client contributed to the hazardous conditions that caused the plaintiff's accident while filling a water truck.

  Plaintiff did not oppose the arguments raised on behalf of the client, including that the client was Not a Labor Law Defendant, i.e. not an "owner," "contractor," or "agent" as required to impose liability under Labor Law claims. Further, it did not supervise, control, or have authority over the plaintiff’s work or activities. Additionally, Devika argued that the client was not negligent because it owed no duty to the plaintiff and had no actual or constructive notice of the alleged dangerous condition. The plaintiff admitted the water truck and affixed ladder were not defective, and the injury was caused by the plaintiff's misuse of a torn hose, unrelated to any acts or omissions by the client.

  The plaintiffs did not oppose these arguments, resulting in dismissal of all claims and cross-claims against the client.

• Dubois v. Carmen Barbato, Inc., et al., Index No.: EF2019-204 (Sup. Ct., Greene County November 22, 2022):

  Devika served as second-chair trial counsel in securing a defense verdict for a commercial rental company client. Her pivotal contributions included preparing motions in limine, strategizing pre-trial deposition testimony, and conducting a comprehensive analysis of applicable local law. These efforts were instrumental in achieving the favorable outcome.

• Durden v. Hurwitz Fine P.C., et al., Index No. 806844/2022 (Sup. Ct., Erie County October 24, 2022):

  Secured voluntary discontinuance in favor of the client following persuasive motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action and lack of standing. Plaintiff alleged negligence and “future risks” of identity theft/fraud. Devika successfully argued that Plaintiff’s claims failed and she lacked standing because she did not suffer an injury in fact and there was no causal connection between the purported injury and conduct complained of.

• Barr v. Suit-Kote Corporation, et al., Index No. 85542 (Sup. Ct., Cattaraugus County June 21, 2022):

  Successfully secured summary judgment dismissing Plaintiff ‘s complaint in a personal injury case in which plaintiff claimed defendant owed him a duty pursuant to a contract.

  Aligned with the arguments raised in briefing, the court applied the Espinal principles to determine that Suit-Kote did not owe a duty of care to the plaintiff. Specifically:

  • Suit-Kote did not create or exacerbate the rebate condition that caused the plaintiff's accident. The rebate was created by NYSDOT after Suit-Kote had completed its work and left the site.

  • Suit-Kote's contractual obligations were limited to its own work and did not include maintaining or posting signage for conditions created by others, such as NYSDOT.

  • There was no evidence that the plaintiff relied on Suit-Kote's performance of its contractual duties.

  Thus, under the Espinal framework, Suit-Kote's actions did not "launch a force of harm" or create an unreasonable risk, leading to the dismissal of the plaintiff's complaint.

• Audrey J. Grant v. The Westcott, Inc. d/b/a The Westcott Theater, et al., Index No.: 010329/2018, (Sup. Ct., Onondaga County January 28, 2022):

  Successfully argued for summary judgment on behalf of the client, Westcott Theater, achieving dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint, alleging injuries sustain as a result of a slip/fall on ice on a sidewalk adjacent to premises leased by the client, based on the following points:

  (1) Liability for Snow and Ice Removal: The court found that the City of Syracuse Code (§ 24-3) did not clearly impose liability on abutting landowners for failing to remove snow and ice from public sidewalks. Therefore, the Westcott Theater was not liable for the natural accumulation of snow and ice on the sidewalk.

  (2) Special Use Doctrine: The court determined that the marquee above the sidewalk did not constitute a "special use" of the sidewalk that would impose liability on the Westcott Theater. Special use cases typically involve installations or modifications that benefit the property owner beyond public use, which was not applicable here.

  (3) Lease Agreement: The lease between Westcott Holdings and the Westcott Theater specified that structural items, including the marquee, were the sole responsibility of owner-lessee. As a result, any defects in the marquee were not the responsibility of the lessor-Westcott Theater.

  These arguments led the court to grant summary judgment in favor of the client, Westcott Theater, dismissing the complaint and all cross-claims against it.

• Coventry, et al. v. ASI Underwriters Insurance and United States Professional Tennis Association (USPTA), Docket No.: SOM-L-00314-20 (Superior Court of New Jersey Law Division: Somerset County May 8, 2020)

  Plaintiff’s Declaratory Judgment – Motion to Dismiss Granted

  Devika successfully briefed and argued a motion to dismiss on behalf of the client, USPTA, in a case where the plaintiff sought a declaratory judgment against ASI and USPTA. The plaintiff demanded that ASI and USPTA provide a defense and coverage for injuries allegedly sustained from an assault by a former employee of the Princeton Racquet Club.

  The court granted the motion to dismiss based on several key arguments:

  Failure to State a Claim: The plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.

  Lack of Standing: The court agreed with Devika’s argument that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue USPTA and ASI. They did not have a judgment against the alleged assailant, nor did they have privity of contract or enforceable rights against the defendants.

  Insufficient Evidence: The plaintiffs failed to provide the necessary insurance policy information and did not demonstrate that USPTA is an insurance carrier.

• Bartlett v. DeFrancisco, Index No.: EFC-2020-0532 (Sup. Ct., Oswego County November 19, 2020):

  Successfully briefed and argued pre-answer motion to dismiss plaintiff’s professional malpractice complaint made against the client. The Court agreed with the following arguments in granting summary judgment:

  Statute of Limitations: The court determined that the malpractice claim was time-barred under CPLR § 214(6). The alleged malpractice occurred on December 6, 2016, when the stipulation discontinuing the personal injury action was mailed. Since the complaint was filed after the three-year statute of limitations had expired, the claim was dismissed.

  Continuous Representation Doctrine: The plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the continuous representation doctrine applied, as there was no evidence of ongoing legal representation by the client after December 6, 2016.

  Alternative Arguments: The plaintiff's arguments that the statute of limitations began later, either when the workers' compensation benefits were terminated or when the carrier filed a request for further action, were rejected. The court held that the statute of limitations began at the time of the alleged malpractice.

  These arguments led the Court to grant summary judgment in favor of the client, dismissing the complaint as a matter of law.

• Nunez v. Salvation Army, Index No. EF004912-2017 (Sup. Ct., Orange County September 1, 2020):

  Secured summary judgment dismissal of Plaintiff’s negligence claim arising out of an alleged trip/fall

  Successfully argued on behalf of the Salvation Army, for summary judgment dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint based on the following key points:

  1. No Evidence of a Defect: The Salvation Army presented testimony and photographic evidence showing that no hole or defect existed in the area where the plaintiff claimed to have fallen. Witnesses, including employees and a property director, testified that the area had not been altered, repaired, or repaved before or after the incident.

  2. Eyewitness Accounts: Multiple witnesses, including employees and the plaintiff's own family members, testified that the plaintiff tripped over her own feet rather than any defect in the sidewalk or curb.

  3. Expert Analysis: A professional engineer concluded that the area was in compliance with all applicable codes and standards. The minor irregularities noted were deemed negligible and not hazardous.

  4. Lack of Supporting Evidence: The plaintiff failed to provide any evidence, such as photographs or expert testimony, to substantiate her claim that a hole caused her fall. Her assertion that the hole had been repaired after the incident was unsupported by any documentation or visible signs of repair.

  5. Speculative Claims: The court found the plaintiff's claims to be speculative, as she could not definitively identify the cause of her fall. This lack of clarity undermined her negligence claim.

  Based on these arguments, the court concluded that the Salvation Army was not liable for the plaintiff's injuries and dismissed the complaint.

• Ober v. The Dormitory Authority of the State of New York, et al., Index No. 709273/2018 (Sup. Ct., Queens County September 21, 2020):

  Secured summary judgment dismissal of Plaintiff’s premises liability action against all defendants.

  Successfully argued on behalf of the client, The Dormitory Authority of the State of New York (DASNY) and Q Student Residence LLC (QSR), for summary judgment dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint based on the following points:

  1. Notice of Claim Requirement: The court initially dismissed the complaint against DASNY because the plaintiff failed to serve and file a timely Notice of Claim, as required under CPLR Section 3211(a)(7).

  2. No Ownership or Control: The Court found that QSR was entitled to summary judgment pursuant to CPLR Section 3212 because it did not own, operate, manage, inspect, or control the location where the alleged incident occurred. This was supported by affidavits and property records.

  3. No Creation or Notice of Hazard: QSR established that it did not create the alleged hazardous condition and had neither actual nor constructive notice of its existence.

  The court found no triable issues of fact in the plaintiff's opposition, leading to the dismissal of the complaint and all cross-claims against DASNY and QSR.

• Harvey v. Samaritan Daytop Village, Inc., et al., Index No.: 524965/2017 (Sup. Ct., Kings County November 8, 2019):

  Successfully briefed and argued pre-answer motion to dismiss plaintiff’s personal injury case arising out of an assault

• Duran v. The Salvation Army, Docket No.: L-7236-15 (Sup. Ct., Middlesex County November 2017)

  Devika achieved a favorable settlement following a 14-day trial in the Superior Court of Middlesex County in a complex personal injury/employer liability matter. Her comprehensive involvement included conducting effective jury selection, skillfully examining witnesses, briefing and arguing critical motions in limine, and conducting the direct examination of the plaintiff’s emergency room physician, whose pivotal testimony significantly contributed to the favorable outcome.

• Blashka v. New York Hotel Trades Council & Hotel Assn. of N.Y. City Health Ctr., 126 A.D.3d 503 (1st Dept. 2015)

  Successfully briefed and argued Appeal, reversing trial court’s decision which granted summary judgment dismissing client’s whistleblower retaliation claim pursuant to New York Labor Law §741. 

The Appellate Division reversed the lower court's decision and reinstated the client, Dr. Blashka’s, complaint against the New York Hotel Trades Council and Hotel Association of New York City Health Center. The court held that:

1. Labor Law § 741 Claim: Dr. Blashka sufficiently identified laws he reasonably believed were violated, such as Education Law §§ 6509(3)-(4) and Board of Regents Rule 29.1, which prohibit practicing dentistry while intoxicated. His reports about a dentist's alleged drinking while practicing were protected disclosures under Labor Law § 741.

2. Causation: The court found a close temporal relationship between Dr. Blashka's reports in May and June 2009 and his termination in July 2009, supporting an inference of retaliation.

3. Pretext: Dr. Blashka raised factual issues about whether the stated reasons for his termination—prior warnings and alleged mismanagement—were pretextual. Evidence showed he had reported the supervisee's drinking as early as April 2009 but was instructed only to monitor the situation.

The appellate court concluded that there were triable issues of fact regarding whether Dr. Blashka's termination was retaliatory, warranting the reinstatement of his complaint.

• Sallie Mae, Inc. v. Joy Schulman, Index No. 002525/13 (Civil Court, City of NY December 2014):

Devika successfully tried and won a bench trial in New York County Civil Court, securing the dismissal of the complaint through a Motion for Directed Verdict at the close of the plaintiff’s evidence. Persuasive arguments, supported by facts extracted during the plaintiff's witness cross-examinations, were crucial in obtaining this result. These facts reinforced the legal arguments raised in the motion, including that the plaintiff failed to state a cause of action and lacked standing.

• Travelers Insurance Company v. Towne Air Freight, Inc., et al., Docket No.: 11-CIV-1373 (DAB) (S.D.N.Y. May 2014)

  Prepared dispositive motion arguing that Towne Air Freight was strictly liable for the destruction of cargo under the Carmack Amendment (49 U.S.C. § 14706), which imposes liability on carriers for the full value of damaged goods unless a proper limitation of liability is established. Towne Air failed to meet the required Hughes Test criteria, including issuing a bill of lading, offering the shipper a reasonable opportunity to select liability levels, and obtaining the shipper's agreement to a limitation. Additionally, Towne Air's unauthorized geographic deviation by rerouting the cargo from Kansas City to Chicago constituted a material breach, voiding any limitation of liability. The thorough briefing was pivotal in securing a favorable settlement on behalf of the insurance carrier.