General Liability, Premises & Complex Torts

Harrington, Ocko & Monk’s attorneys have published and lectured extensively to bar association, insurance industry and trade organizations earning the firm a reputation as specialists in defense of general liability claims. Harrington, Ocko & Monk, LLP has been selected by insurance companies and self-insured commercial businesses to represent a wide variety of public and private enterprises in defense of personal injury and property damage claims. The firm has handled large commercial and residential property programs throughout the City and State of New York, representing owners in a variety of liability claims arising from: property defects, slip and fall, premises security involving criminal assaults and homicide, lead and toxic exposure; environmental hazards, fire and water damage to property, construction related claims, and wrongful death among others. The firm represents educational and charitable institutions, multiple dwelling property owners and managers, national hotel and food service institutions, product manufacturers, trucking companies, retail and commercial establishments in a wide variety of these claims. All cases are evaluated to develop a resolution plan that seeks risk transfer through contractual, common law indemnity and third-party actions. The firm aggressively develops discovery with a view towards securing summary judgment or leveraging the most cost-effective resolution plan through mediation or trial. Cost analysis and budgeting proposals are collaboratively developed with our clients and carriers throughout the litigation process.

Representative Matters

:

• Represented property management company of a large commercial building in Manhattan in a case where they were sued by an 84 year old woman, who claimed she tripped on construction debris on the sidewalk outside their premises. Despite the fact that the elderly Plaintiff sustained serious injuries requiring surgery, obtained a jury verdict that Plaintiff did not fall due to our client’s negligence in maintaining the sidewalk.

• Plaintiff tripped off the exterior stairs of the Briarcliff Parish Hall while taking her grandson to lessee’s, Christian Nursery School’s pre-school program. Reversing the lower Court, the Second Department held that building codes violations asserted by plaintiff in the underlying case were inapplicable as they post-dated the construction of the Parish Hall stairs in question, and that our client, Briarcliff, had no prior notice of any alleged defective condition in the exterior stairs where plaintiff fell. It further held that Briarcliff was entitled to defense costs under the broad indemnification provision in the commercial lease as its it was triggered on an “arising out of use and occupancy” basis and as the lessee was required to name Briarcliff as an Additional Insured. Thus the provision did not violate GOL § 5-321 notwithstanding that it purported to indemnify landlord for its own negligence.

• Summary Judgment was granted in personal injury action where plaintiff was struck by a piece of ceiling grid which fell out of the drop ceiling when she was replacing ceiling tiles. As plaintiff herself was charged with maintenance and replacement of ceiling tiles and had done so on numerous prior occasions, the Supreme Court held that plaintiff could not prove owner either created or had notice of the alleged defective grid piece.

• Plaintiff fell from the monkey bars and fractured her wrist. Summary judgment granted to client dismissing plaintiffs’ negligent supervision action. The court held that not only was the playground equipment appropriate for use by infant plaintiff, a kindergartener, but also that adequate supervision was provided, and in any event, that the lack of supervision was not the proximate cause of the accident due to the alacrity in which the accident occurred.

• Represented property management company of a large commercial building in Manhattan in a case where they were sued by an 84 year old woman, who claimed she tripped on construction debris on the sidewalk outside their premises. Despite the fact that the elderly Plaintiff sustained serious injuries requiring surgery, obtained a jury verdict that Plaintiff did not fall due to our client’s negligence in maintaining the sidewalk.