Anthony joins GVK as a Partner in our Construction and Design Professional practices, where he represents clients in pre-suit matters and in litigation in New York, New Jersey and Federal Court under Commercial General Liability and Professional Liability Policies, respectively. Anthony also handles GVK’s Risk Management programs for commercial insurance carriers as well as construction companies and design professional firms directly. In addition, he handles complex claims for high-profile insureds for certain commercial carriers as a Third-Party Administrator.
Before joining GVK, Anthony had approximately 10 years of civil litigation experience and 5 years of experience as a professional liability adjuster. Most recently, he worked for a major, national insurance carrier and a third-party administrator where he was the Team Leader for an Architects & Engineers Claims group. In this role, he was the point person for a nationwide claims practice under numerous policy forms including: Design Professional; Contractor’s Professional and Pollution; Owner’s Protective and Indemnity; Multi-Line Specialty; Commercial General Liability; Site-Specific Pollution and Excess policies. In addition to directly handling claims, he also managed an external claims team while simultaneously handling the carrier’s complex claims.
Anthony has been involved in many large E&O claims where policy limits have been at stake including: gas, chemical and/or mineral plant design projects; professional sports stadiums; hospitals; highways; universities; apartments; condominiums; and design-build projects – just to name a few.
In addition to his claims experience, Anthony worked at a major national law firm and regional design professional specialty firm where he specialized in the defense of architects and engineers under Design Professional liability policies in complex, multi-party actions. Also, he represented construction managers and general contractors under Commercial General Liability policies.
Anthony also has extensive experience in defending catastrophic personal injury matters that include allegations of wrongful death, traumatic brain injury and crush injuries. In addition, he has defended NY Labor Law, toxic tort, products liability, subrogation, dram shop, asbestos, mass tort, commercial trucking and personal auto actions. He has worked with numerous insurance carriers and has been involved in the successful resolution of hundreds of matters throughout his career.
Sherri A. Jayson recently won an appeal in the Appellate Division, Second Department in a case venued in Kings County, resulting in dismissal of this lawsuit. The plaintiff was struck by the defendant’s vehicle while crossing the street. As a result of the accident, the plaintiff claimed that she sustained a tear and impingement to her left shoulder for which she underwent surgical repair.
Sherri originally filed a motion for summary judgment with trial court, arguing that plaintiff’s alleged injuries were not caused by the accident and, alternatively, that her injuries did not constitute “serious injuries” as defined by New York Insurance Law § 5102(d).
Relying solely on the records of the plaintiff’s treating providers in support of the motion, the trial court (Wooten, J.) denied the motion for summary judgment holding that the defendants failed to make a prima facie case of entitlement to summary judgment when they failed to include certified copies of the plaintiff’s medical records.
Sherri filed an appeal of the trial court’s decision arguing that a defendant may rely solely on the unsworn and uncertified records of a plaintiff’s treating physicians to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment. The Appellate Division agreed. It reversed the decision of the trial court stating that the trial court “should have granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint” based on a lack of proof both as to causation and serious injury due to an unexplained gap in treatment.
Kenneth S. Merber obtained a complete victory after a week long trial of indemnification/loss transfer claims in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Mercer County (Trenton, NJ). Mr. Merber represented a real estate developer in a lawsuit involving a catastrophic loss after a construction worker fell from an unguarded balcony and suffered quadriplegia.
Mr. Merber negotiated a settlement of the claims with the claimant at a mediation prior to trial. He was then tasked with recovering money paid by GVK’s client’s insurer from other parties and sources of insurance. Mr. Merber and his team recovered the policy limits plus legal fees from the insurer who provided coverage from the contractor retained by GVK’s client. He then accepted the assignment of that contractor’s claims against Plaintiff’s employer.
After the claimant’s employer refused to contribute to the settlement and its out of state insurer disclaimed coverage for the subject loss, Mr. Merber and GVK prosecuted their claims at a jury trial. After producing 7 witnesses to prove the employer was negligent and just prior to the presentation of summations, the employer’s insurer, fearing an excess verdict and bad faith claim against its insured, tendered its 7 figure policy limit. Mr. Merber also recovered six figures in attorneys fees above the employer’s policy limits to resolve the case.
Kim H. Townsend recently obtained a defense verdict in a Brooklyn premises liability case in which plaintiff fell into an uncovered, 4-foot-deep access pit and thereby sustained knee and neck injuries requiring cervical fusion and likely knee replacement surgery.
We represented a concrete and excavation company who performed snow removal services in winter months and, on the date of accident, accidentally removed a 350 lb. steel plate which was covering the access pit in question, all of which was confirmed by surveillance video. The plow driver, apparently unaware that his plow had struck and moved the 350 lb. metal plate, thereby exposing an open hole, continued plowing inadvertently filling up the pit with icy water and slush making it invisible to pedestrians and drivers alike.
Kim argued that notwithstanding our client indisputably displaced the metal plate from the pit and exposed the open hole, the owner of the premises and the manager of the sport facility, were solely responsible for the occurrence for failing to maintain the roadway in a safe condition and allowing the steel plate to rise above deteriorated asphalt, thereby allowing the condition which made it possible for the plow blade to remove the steel plate.
After 45 minutes of deliberation, the jury unanimously exonerated our client and found the owner and the manager each 50% responsible for the settlement value. Prior to trial, plaintiff’s demand was $4,500,000, after the liability verdict the case was settled for $1,500,000 by the 2 remaining defendants.
Matthew J. Vitucci recently obtained a directed verdict after a damages only trial in Kings County. The case involved an impact between our client’s left-turning tractor trailer and the vehicle in which plaintiff was a passenger.
The plaintiff and operator of the car was on their way to a nightclub in Manhattan with a friend whereupon they stopped for traffic in the left of lane of the two-lane roadway. At this time, our client’s tractor trailer attempted to make a left-hand turn behind plaintiff’s stopped car and in the process of turning the trailer portion of the truck made contact with the car’s left rear. Plaintiff described a heavy impact which lifted the car off the ground and tore off the vehicle’s bumper and in the process forced plaintiff’s body—despite her wearing of a seatbelt—to the right side of the car causing her head, neck, elbow and right knee to make contact with the right-side door and dashboard.
Plaintiff claimed to have sustained herniations and bulges to her neck and lower back and a torn meniscus to the right knee. Plaintiff underwent surgery to the right knee. At trial, her expert maintained that plaintiff developed degenerative changes post-surgery which would eventually require a knee replacement. He further maintained that plaintiff will require a cervical discectomy and fusion and the same for her lower back.
At trial plaintiff was confronted with the fact that she had been involved in several prior and subsequent accidents wherein she made claims of injury to her back and neck; it was pointed out on cross that plaintiff was less than forthright in her prior testimony regarding these claims. It was further pointed out that plaintiff made no complaints other than that she suffered from mild low back pain to the responding EMS technicians and hospital personnel. It was pointed out to the jury that plaintiff made no complaints regarding her knee to hospital personnel even though she was ambulatory at the scene and at the hospital. It was also argued to the jury that plaintiff’s taking a job as a mail carrier several years after the accident speaks to a conclusion that her future damages are either negligible or non-existent.
Matt argued to the jury that plaintiff’s taking a job as a mail carrier several years after the accident speaks to a conclusion that her future damages are either negligible or non-existent. In summation plaintiff’s counsel asked the jury for 1.75 million. The jury returned an award of 60k past pain and suffering and 1k for future. Following the verdict, the Judge issued a directed verdict in favor of the defendants as plaintiff failed to show that she suffered from a motion restriction that breaches the threshold.
On October 29, 2019, Kenneth S. Merber and Peter J. LoPalo obtained summary judgment in favor of GVK’s client in a lawsuit filed in Hudson County Superior Court. Plaintiff alleged that he sustained significant life altering injuries to his feet while working on a construction project in Jersey City, New Jersey. Our client was the general contractor/construction manager of the project. Plaintiff was employed by a subcontractor that was hired to install paving stone walkways around the premises. Plaintiff severely burned both of his feet while working with hot asphalt at the direction of the landscape contractor’s supervisor. Plaintiff received and continues to receive treatment for his injuries. He claims he will require the amputation of at least one of his feet
GVK’s attorneys argued that as general contractor, our client was not negligent and did not breach a duty of care owed to Plaintiff. They maintained that we did not control the means and methods of Plaintiff’s work that led to Plaintiff’s injuries. Ken and Peter further argued that pursuant to the contract entered into between the Landscape subcontractor and the defendant, and the terms of a stipulation negotiated in the related declaratory judgment action, GVK’s client was entitled to contractual indemnification and reimbursement of attorneys’ fees from the landscape subcontractor. As well as a finding of breach of contract for the landscape contractor’s failure to procure insurance naming the defendant as an additional insured on a primary non-contributory basis. Peter and Ken successfully argued that the Doctrine of Res Judicata barred the contractor’s arguments and claims inconsistent with the terms of the stipulation negotiated by its general counsel.
Consequently, the Court ruled that pursuant to the controlling legal standard, a general contractor is not liable for injuries sustained by a subcontractor’s employee unless said general contractor controls the manner and means of doing the work contracted for. The Court rejected the arguments of Plaintiff and the landscape subcontractor, that a general contractor owes a non-delegable duty to maintain a safe workplace and to proactively inspect the site for the minimal details of the work and how it is performed. The Court also dismissed all cross-claims asserted against the defendant. The Court directed the subcontractor (through its insurer) to reimburse GVK’s clients for the costs, expenses and legal fees they incurred defending the lawsuit.
Kim H. Townsend recently obtained a Defense Verdict in a slip and fall on icy steps in Kings County. Plaintiff alleged she slipped and fell on the exterior steps of our client, the owner of the two-family home, due to an accumulation of ice and snow thereby sustaining a bimalleolar ankle fracture with complications, requiring hardware and 3 related surgeries including one for an infectious condition at the wound site; which also required surgery. In addition, there was a claim of defective handrail design based on a dozen NYC Code violations.
Kim argued that notwithstanding plaintiff was found on the steps in question, she actually fell in the street, as reported in the ambulance report, but which was at odds with the hospital ER records confirming her claim that she fell down icy steps. In an evidentiary and procedural duel involving court rulings, “opened doors” and shifting admissibility requirements, Kim was able to establish that plaintiff was experienced in personal injury litigation, having had a prior fall-down accident and lawsuit, and argued that plaintiff’s hospital version of the accident was altered to conform to practical litigation necessities of which she was aware.
Prior to trial, plaintiff’s demand was $1,300,000 and was reduced to $900,000. Defendants offered $350,000. The jury deliberated for 9 minutes before returning a Defense Verdict.
Christopher L. Parisi recently obtained summary judgement in a New York Labor Law case in Kings County. GVK’s client allegedly served as the general contractor for a residential construction project in Brooklyn. Plaintiff testified that after installing a stacked washer-dryer unit and rolling it into a cabinet, he realized he mistakenly left the power cord on top of the unit. The washer-dryer unit was on wheels, and the power cord would have been accessible if plaintiff rolled the unit back out of the cabinet. Instead, plaintiff reached the cord by flipping over an empty bucket and standing on it, then slipped and fell backwards. Plaintiff also testified that his foreman had refused to provide him with a ladder to perform installations.
Plaintiff claimed injuries to: his head, spine, right shoulder, right forearm, right wrist, right leg, and right foot. He underwent surgery to his back, right shoulder, right wrist, and right foot. He alleged total disability. Plaintiff’s complaint alleged claims pursuant to New York Labor Law sections 200, 240, and 241(6), as well as common law negligence. At the close of discovery, plaintiff and all defendants moved for summary judgment. In support of their motion, plaintiff had an affidavit from an expert witness who claimed that plaintiff required a ladder for the subject task.
In granting summary judgment to the defendants, the court ruled that the plaintiff was the sole-proximate cause of his accident. Specifically, the court determined that plaintiff could have safely completed the installation by rolling the washer-dryer unit away from the wall, and that “he did not need a ladder and he should not have stood on a plastic bucket”. Plaintiff’s complaint, and all claims, were dismissed in their entirety.
Kim Townsend recently obtained a defense verdict in a construction site motor vehicle accident case, in New York State Supreme Court, Suffolk County.
It was plaintiff’s contention that while driving through a traffic “chute” on our client’s construction site, a 60,000 ton crane slammed into his truck, causing violent vehicle movement and significant damage; all of which allegedly caused serious injury to plaintiff’s back and shoulder. Plaintiff contended that management of the construction site traffic chute, and crane placement, was performed in a negligent manner and thus caused the occurrence. Specifically, plaintiff argued that the client’s flagmen were negligent in waiving plaintiff through the chute while the crane—not properly placed per DOT specifications—was rotating with a load of steel beams in its boom sling. Kim argued that, notwithstanding our client’s theoretical negligence, plaintiff’s testimony was false on important and material matters—specifically the force of the crane’s impact with his truck, which could not plausibly be reconciled with photos of the vehicle damage. Accordingly, it was argued, the jury should disregard all of plaintiff’s testimony and find in favor of defendants. After approximately 4 hours of deliberation, the jury returned a unanimous defense verdict.
As a consequence of the accident, plaintiff claimed to have sustained injury to his mid back, requiring thoracic vertebral fusion surgery, and a torn rotator cuff, requiring arthroscopic surgery.
Prior to trial, plaintiff’s demand was $5,500,000. The demand was reduced to $2,500,000 during jury deliberations.
Andrew C. Kaye joined Gallo Vitucci Klar in the spring of 2014 focusing on the defense of high exposure cases. Handling mostly labor matters, Andrew’s ability to evaluate and manage all aspects of litigation, including risk transfer, coverage and general liability has proven an invaluable asset to GVK and its clients. He is regularly called upon to provide quick, succinct and precise analysis on transfer and excess matters, often having to prepare those files for trial within small windows of time. In addition to his legal acumen, Andrew is able to develop and harness relationships with both counsel and clients, allowing him to regularly secure favorable and efficient results. He has been an important part of GVK’s continued growth and we are happy to announce his promotion to partner.
Richard E. Weber Jr. has been with the firm since 2013. He focuses his practice on general liability defense, defense of false arrest/wrongful detention claims, and transportation defense. In addition, Richard has developed expertise in the area of No-Fault litigation, including subrogation actions. He also has exceptional experience in insurance coverage especially in cases involving material misrepresentation and fraud at the inception of the policy.
Since joining the firm in February 2013, Jill Zibkow has focused her practice on the defense of a wide variety of general liability matters including premises liability, construction defect/Labor Law, and professional malpractice. Jill is a versatile lawyer and team leader who achieves successful outcomes for our clients through her creative and resourceful defense strategies. She is an integral component of our firm and has vastly contributed to our recent growth and achievements.
Maria Zouros has been with the firm since 2016. Her primary concentration is in the defense of high exposure construction accidents, municipal liability and premises liability. In addition, Maria is a mentor to newly admitted attorneys and legal interns beginning their careers at GVK.
GVK is very pleased by the promotion of this talented and exceptional group of lawyers. Their work and importance to the firm is a foundational part of our ongoing success and our ability to evolve to meet the challenges of the market. They continue to play a key role in our delivery of superior legal services and value to our clients. We look forward to their ongoing contributions.
