        |
|
Dateline, New York City, November 28, 2011 Barry S. Rothman was recently accepted as a member of the Trucking Industry Defense Association. TIDA is a non-profit association with members devoted to sharing knowledge and resources for defense of the trucking industry. TIDA has become the organization of choice for over 1,600 motor carriers, trucking insurers, defense attorneys and claims servicing companies. Dateline, New York City, November 1, 2011 Barry S. Rothman recently spoke at the International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC) 2011 U.S. Shopping Center Law Conference in Phoenix, AZ. He co-presented a workshop session entitled "Insurance, Indemnity, Waiver of Subrogation and Other Risk Shifting and Sharing A 'Top-10 List of the Best and Worst Contract Clauses". The ICSC U.S. Law Conference is the largest annual gathering of attorneys working in, and servicing, the shopping center industry in the U.S. Presentation materials are available upon request. Dateline: New York, September, 2010 SR&A partner David Abrams obtained dismissal on behalf of trucking company Trailwood Transport on statute of limitations grounds. In a suit removed by SR&A to the United States District Court, Northern District of New York, defendants moved to dismiss based on the County Clerk's filing stamp showing the Complaint was filed one day after expiration of the statute of limitations. Plaintiff contended he timely commenced action by delivering his Complaint via FedEx to the County Clerk one day prior to expiration of the statute of limitations as shown by the FedEx delivery confirmation. However, the Complaint was date stamped by the County Clerk one day following expiration of the statute of limitations and SR&A submitted affidavits from County Clerk employees asserting that the date stamp reflected the actual date of filing, and that there were no employees of the County Clerk's office that matched the recipient individual named on the FedEx delivery receipt. Dateline: Livingston, NJ, August 2010 SR&A partner David Abrams won judgment in favor of trucking company ERB International in a matter pending in the United States District Court, District of New Jersey. Plaintiff alleged that defendant trucker struck her vehicle from behind causing serious neck and back injuries. During arbitration SR&A presented overwhelming physical and expert evidence, and prior contrary versions from plaintiff, demonstrating that the accident actually occurred when plaintiff cut in front of defendants' tractor-trailer while it was stationary, and that she was solely responsible for the accident. Numerous photographs obtained from plaintiff's social networking site demonstrated that contrary to her claims of permanent injury, plaintiff continued to engage in dancing, watersports, paintball games and other activities after the accident. Based on the arbitrator's strongly worded decision, plaintiff did not seek to vacate the award and judgment was entered for ERB International. Barry Rothman to speak at ICSC's 2011 U.S. Shopping Center Law ConferenceBarry S. Rothman will be a session presenter at the International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC) 2011 U.S. Law Conference in Phoenix, AZ, to be held on October 26-28, 2011. Barry will be speaking on Insurance, Indemnity, Waiver of Subrogation and Other Risk Shifting and Sharing - A Top-10' List of the Best and Worst Contract Clauses. The U.S. Shopping Center Law Conference is the largest annual meeting of industry attorneys and legal practitioners servicing the shopping center industry. Dateline: New York, March 1, 2009
Martin joined Strongin Rothman & Abrams, LLP in May 2000. He actively handles all aspects of products liability, general liability, commercial litigation, consumer protection and employment discrimination matters at the state and federal level throughout New York and New Jersey. Before joining Strongin Rothman & Abrams, Martin spent two years as a litigation associate at Lester Schwab Katz & Dwyer LLP, where he handled a variety of products liability and premises security cases and served as national discovery counsel for a major Japanese corporation. In addition to his litigation practice, Martin also serves as a court-appointed Referee in Foreclosure, and is qualified to serve as a Guardian, Court Evaluator and Attorney for Allegedly Incapacitated Persons under Part 36 of the Rules of the Chief Judge. Martin is a member of the American Bar Association and the New York State Bar Association. Dateline: New York, April 4, 2008 Caccavale v. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, et al., Supreme Court, Bronx County, 13876/02 Martin Adler recently obtained summary judgment dismissing all claims against our client in a Labor Law / products liability action in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Bronx County. Plaintiff was operating a man lift from its bucket at an elevation of 20-25 feet when the bucket was struck by another man lift, causing both to topple to the ground. It was claimed that certain mechanical components in the man lift, which were distributed by our client, were defectively designed and/or manufactured and not suitable for outdoor applications. We successfully argued that there was no evidence proffered to show any design defect or any corrosion within the sealed component, but that all available evidence, including expert inspection, indicated that the components in question had been substantially physically damaged through misuse and a failure of the owner to inspect the man lift. The Court agreed, holding that the evidence adduced failed to establish any negligent conduct on the part of our client proximate to the plaintiffs accident. Dateline: New York, December 21, 2007 Vincent R. Marinelli and Karen T. Marinelli v. Campers Barn of Kingston, Inc., Fleetwood Motor Homes of Pennsylvania, Inc., Fleetwood Motor Homes of Indiana, Inc. and R. Wayne Johnson Index No.: 06-617 Jill Taylor has obtained partial summary judgment in favor of a recreational vehicle manufacturer and dealer, dismissing all of plaintiffs' claims under the New York State Lemon Law, as well as causes of action for defective design, breach of implied warranty for a particular purpose, in Ulster County, NY. Plaintiffs claimed that the RV developed a mold condition. Plaintiffs refused to have the vehicle evaluated and repaired at a manufacturer's service center and demanded a new vehicle. We successfully argued that the portions of the vehicle that plaintiffs claimed were defective were considered "living quarters" under New York General Business law 198-a, and that plaintiffs failed to meet the minimum number of repairs requirement set forth in the Lemon Law statute. The court found that plaintiffs had failed to present any evidence that the vehicle had been defectively designed and no triable issue of fact was presented that the vehicle was to be used for anything other than its ordinary purpose. Plaintiffs also sued a corporate principal in his individual capacity, and we successfully argued that the plaintiffs failed prove the necessary elements to justify piercing the corporate veil to find a corporate principal personally liable. Dateline: New York, 2/9/07 Howard F. Strongin obtained a unanimous defense verdict on behalf of his clients TCM Manufacturing USA, Inc., Mitsui Machinery Distribution, Inc. and Acculift, Inc. from a New York State Supreme Court, Queens County jury after a 2 week bifurcated trial. Plaintiff, a 44 year old warehouseman and forklift operator, sustained a near traumatic amputation of his right leg when he was struck by a TCM forklift. He asserted causes of action sounding in strict products liability, breach of implied warranty for a particular purpose, and negligent inspection and testing of the forklift. Specifically, it was claimed that the forklift's hand operated park brake failed in that it was capable of being placed in a "false brake" position. Among other things, plaintiff's expert opined that the hand brake was capable of being pulled back and released without retracting to the "off" position; thereby giving the operator the false impression that the brake was actually engaged. As a result, it was alleged, a slight jolt or jarring of the forklift would disengage the brake allowing the forklift to move. The defendants were successful in proving that this accident was caused by the fault of no one but the plaintiff. The defense demonstrated through expert testimony that included a detailed accident reconstruction analysis, the testimony of technical and fact witnesses, and the introduction of product literature, that the plaintiff failed to apply the park brake, that he failed to follow accepted forklift safety procedures when he parked the forklift on a slope, and that he failed to lower the forks to the ground and tilt the forklift mast forward. It was also proven that the forklift was properly tested and inspected. Damages were not before the jury as the plaintiff did not prevail on any of his theories. Dateline: New York, 9/11/06 Martin Adler has obtained summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs complaint, based on the New York State Labor Law, in a New York County case. Plaintiff, an electrician, alleged to have slipped and fallen in October 1999, on cutting oil leaking from a pipe threading machine located within a building undergoing renovation, sustaining serious internal injuries which have left him unable to work since the date of the incident. He alleged violations of New York Labor Law 200 and 241(6) as well as common law negligence claims. SR&A represented a steamfitter subcontractor on the project. We successfully argued that there was no evidence that the machine belonged to our client, and that there was no evidence that our client created or had actual or constructive notice of the leaking oil condition, since the accident occurred on a weekend when our client was not present on the job site. The Court found that even though there were questions of fact as to the ownership of the machine, we successfully established that our client did not create or have actual or constructive notice of the condition, and that the evidence submitted in opposition failed to establish the existence of any material issues of fact. decisions.courts.state.ny.us .PDF Dateline: Livingston, NJ, 3/3/06 Jill Taylor successfully argued for summary judgment dismissing all claims against our client in a product liability case in New Jersey Superior Court, Middlesex County. Plaintiff suffered serious crush injuries to his right hand when his gloved hand got caught and pulled into an industrial tape machine. Plaintiff alleged strict liability, breach of express and implied warranties and negligence against our client for the design, manufacture and distribution of the machine. We argued that that our client was not involved in the design, manufacture or distribution of the machine and that our client and a co-defendant were not the same corporate entity. The Court ruled that plaintiff failed to provide a sufficient basis to impose liability against our client for the design, manufacture or distribution of the machine and that our client and co-defendant were not the same corporate entity, granting summary judgment as a matter of law. Dateline: New York, 1/31/06 Congratulations to Martin Adler, who obtained summary judgment dismissing all claims against our client in Supreme Court, New York County, in a premises liability case. Plaintiff, a patron of our client's restaurant, fell down an interior staircase, sustaining a trimalleolar ankle fracture with internal fixation and lower back injuries. She alleged various defects including an improperly mounted handrail, sleek and worn treads, and insufficient lighting. We argued that the staircase was reasonably safe and that the plaintiff, who was a frequent customer of the restaurant and had been drinking on the night of her accident, was solely responsible for the accident. The Court found that we had successfully established as a matter of law that the restaurant was not negligent, and that plaintiff had failed to establish the existence of any material issues of fact in opposition to the motion. Dateline: September 25, 2005 Barry Rothman successfully defended Nestle's Ice Cream Company, the manufacturer and distributor of the Nestle's Drumstick© Triple Chocolate ice cream product, and ShopRite of Monroe, in a suit brought by a consumer who claims to have ingested glass fragments in the pre-packaged cone. The plaintiffs claimed psychiatric and gastro-intestinal injuries, and brought the action on theories of negligence, strict product liability and breach of express and implied warranties. Following an eight-day trial in the New York State Supreme Court, Orange County, and one hour of deliberation, the jury unanimously found for the defendants on all of the causes of action and, in post-trial comments, noted that they did not believe plaintiff's testimony that there was glass in the product. |
 |
Martin M. Adler is a 1991 graduate, cum laude, of the State University of New York University Center at Albany, with a concentration in History and Political Science. He earned his law degree, cum laude, in 1995 from New York Law School, graduating in the top 10% of his class. Martin served as managing editor of the New York Law School Law Review and authored a note on the emerging use of after-acquired evidence in Title VII employment discrimination cases, which was published in the Law Review. He is a member of the New York and New Jersey bars and is admitted to the Northern, Southern, Eastern and Western District Courts of New York and the Federal District Court of New Jersey.