Pulling for You
Our Successes
When all else fails and a case has been dismissed or otherwise harmed by a court’s decision, then companies, attorneys, and individuals place their trust in Peter Klose’s diligent research, capable writing, and insightful legal advocacy by hiring Klose & Associates as counsel in all types of complex litigation and appeals. Below are some of the reported cases that we have worked on over the years:
Rojas v. Paine, 2015 NY Slip Op 01258 [125 AD3d 745] (2nd Dep’t 2015)
Successfully prosecuted legal malpractice case through appeal of the Final Judgment awarding our clients significant damages in a botched real estate transaction [related decision].
Prior appeal in the same case, Rojas v Paine 2012 NY Slip Op 08506 (2nd Dep’t 2012)
John C. Tesone et al., Respondents v. Deborah A. Hoffman, Appellant
Decided May 24, 2011.
As appellate counsel, Klose & Associates appealed to New York State Appellate Court, First Department on behalf of a injured pedestrian, and successfully argued that the damage award should be increased.
The Verdict. By special verdict at trial, the jury found that the City of New York and its contractors were negligent, and apportioned liability twenty (20%) for the City and eighty (80%) against the injured plaintiff. Upon apportioning liability, the jury awarded the injured party only three thousand ($3,000) for “medical expenses” from the date of the accident up to the date of the verdict; Five Thousand ($5,000) for past pain and suffering (from the date of the accident to the verdict), and no damages ($0) for future medical expenses or future pain and suffering. Trial counsel hired Klose & Associates to appeal the verdict believing that the award was too low, and the apportionment erroneous.
The Injuries. The Plaintiff (42 years old) tripped when her foot became caught on a raised ridge of exposed marble in the entranceway leading to the front doors of her office building. Upon falling, the Plaintiff-Appellant sustained a right knee injury and was taken by ambulance to Lincoln Hospital, where she was treated and released. Four days later, she began treating for injuries to her right knee and lower back. When the right knee did not improve, she was treated by an orthopedic doctor in the Bronx, who ultimately performed two arthroscopic surgeries at New York Westchester Square Medical Center.
The Order. The Appellate Court agreed with the arguments raised by Klose & Associates, finding that the jury’s verdict as to her past and future pain and suffering “deviated from what would be reasonable compensation to the extent indicated.”
The Result. The matter will be re-tried or settled, but either way, Klose & Associates ‘ added value to the case through detailed writing and appellate advocacy.
Goldschmidt v. Ford Street LLC
Clients purchased two lots and commenced construction of a multifamily dwelling. After the construction began, the neighbors learned that the clients’ property line extended approximately eight inches beyond a fence which had been dividing the neighbors’ driveway for years. After discovering nails driven into the driveway to mark a boundary line, the neighbors commenced action against our clients claiming title to the eight-inch strip of land by adverse possession. After discovery, we moved to dismiss the adverse possession cause of action on the ground that the plaintiffs could not establish the elements of claim of right and hostility, and that the plaintiffs did not cultivate or improve the property, but the trial court denied the motion. We appealed this ruling.
On appeal, we argued that the trial court erred because the evidence suggested, as a matter of law, that the neighbors had cooperated with the client’s predecessors in title in constructing and maintaining the fence separating the driveway, therefore, they could not have been “hostile,” which is an element to adverse possession claims. The consensual use of the area in question belied the neighbor’s argument that the possession constituted an actual invasion of or infringement on the owner’s rights.
Bottom line – adverse possession claims are very difficult to prove.
Correia v. Suarez
INTENTIONAL TORTS – Westchester County
Jury awards $106k to business owners pestered by neighbor
The owners and operators of a Tarrytown day-care center recovered a total of more than $100,000 in a suit against a neighbor who didn’t appreciate the center’s presence. In the suit, Abel and Lurdes Correia alleged that a neighbor, Eduardo Suarez, intentionally filed false complaints about the business’s operations and that he attempted to discourage and intimidate potential clients. Suarez contended that the children and a large parrot created an unreasonable amount of noise. He also claimed that the center’s vehicular traffic constantly blocked the sidewalk that bordered his home. The jury was not sympathetic, and it awarded $106,000, which included punitive damages of $70,000.
68 Burns New Holding Inc. v. Burns Street Owners Corp.
After his case had been dismissed, our client sought appellate representation by Peter Klose. On appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County, Peter Klose won reversal of the judgment, permitting our client to proceed with his claims against a cooperative board and its managing agent relative to the sale of several sponsored units, and the defendants’ failure to properly apply Senior Citizens Rent Increase Exemption (SCRIE) credits.
Cherry v. Tucker
Based on the tireless motion and brief writing by Peter Klose, the appeals court affirmed the Kings County Supreme Court decision dismissing a motor vehicle complaint against our client, a security company, alleging negligence, negligent hiring, negligent retention, and negligent supervision of a security guard. The company was dismissed from the case as a matter of law.
In re Reissman
Our appeals specialist, Peter Klose, argued an appeal from the Surrogate’s Court, Rockland County, concerning a property line dispute, where our client sought to force an estate to convey real property in a complex title dispute.
Bush v. City of New York
Appeal was taken from a personal injury, negligence action in the Bronx County, Supreme Court denying a motion by our client to dismiss the complaint. The appellate court ruled in favor of our client, allowing us to reargue the merits of an indemnification agreement. Upon rehearing, the Supreme Court granted our client’s motion and allowed our client to recover damages from its contractor in a complex construction accident litigation.
Cohen v. Gordon
After trial was complete, our attorney, Peter Klose, was hired as appellate counsel to argue that the trial court, Richmond County, failed to award prejudgment interest in a breach of fiduciary duty action. On appeal, with Mr. Klose successfully arguing that the client was entitled to interest accruing before the date of judgment, we secured a higher award.
Thompson v. Stop and Shop Companies
As appellate counsel in this slip and fall, negligence action against a supermarket company, Peter Klose successfully argued that the lower’s court’s order dismissing the action was proper. Specifically, Mr. Klose demonstrated that his client had no prior notice of the existence of a patch of spilled liquid upon which plaintiff allegedly fell, thereby alleviating the supermarket client from liability.
Nardelli v. Young Israel
In this case, the plaintiff brought suit against our client’s company because he had suffered injuries while working at a construction site. As appellate counsel in this personal injury, scaffolding law claim, Peter Klose successfully won reversal of the Nassau County Supreme Court decision which held the client’s company liable as a matter of law under the scaffold law. As a result, the parties were permitted to go to trial over serious questions of fact in this complex construction accident claim.
Tkacs v. Dominion Const. Corp.
As appellate counsel, Peter Klose again won reversal of the Nassau County Supreme Court’s order which granted our client’s motion for indemnification, however, limited the damages to the cost of liability insurance. On appeal, the court reversed the lower court’s determination of damages, thereby substantially increasing the award by including all damages resulting from the breach of the agreement. Ultimately, our construction company client was entitled to recover defense costs in the underlying personal injury action and indemnification for its liability to the plaintiff.
Medhi Dilmaghani & Co. v. Bring Savad & Fein
As appellate counsel to a law firm defending a lawyer in a legal malpractice matter, Mr. Klose won the right to pursue insurance coverage against the lawyer’s legal malpractice insurance carrier. Without winning the right to insurance coverage, the lawyer would have been at a significant disadvantage.
Halali v. Vista Environments, Inc.
On this appeal from the Kings County Supreme Court, Mr. Klose successfully reversed the lower court’s order which dismissed a claim for indemnification or contribution due to a personal injury action brought against insurance brokers who allegedly were negligent in procuring insurance.
Guzman v. Estate of Fluker
Appealing a decision from the Kings County Supreme Court, Peter Klose successfully argued that the lower court should have dismissed a claim of willful exaggeration of a mechanic’s lien against his client. After a prolonged battle in the lower court, our client was vindicated and the case was dismissed by the appeals court.
We have worked on various other motions and appeals in numerous cases involving a variety of complex and mundane issues of law. When other attorneys, companies and individuals seek his expertise, they know that they are getting a competent, articulate, and aggressive litigator who will spend the extra time to find a way to change the outcome. As such, Peter Klose has developed expertise and competence in many areas areas of law, including environmental insurance coverage, legal malpractice, accountant’s malpractice, scaffold accident claims, court procedure, personal injury claims, land use issues, and real estate matters.
Clients from all walks of life trust that we will honestly assess the legal situation and work with the client to decide whether litigation of the dispute is the answer to the problem.