News

ANOTHER DEFENSE VERDICT FOR LARRY WASSERMAN

JUNE 13, 2022 – After a hard-fought 5 day trial, MSSSV partner Larry Wasserman persuaded another Suffolk County jury to find for his client. Defense verdict in Dorst v. Walsh !  …

SIX (6) MSSSV PARTNERS NAMED AS SUPERLAWYERS

October 13th, 2021

The firm is again pleased to announce that 6 MSSSV partners have been named as Superlawyers.       

Mike Miranda and Steve Verveniotis were recognized in the fields of Employment Litigation and Insurance Coverage, respectively.      

Ondine Slone, Rich Sklarin, Andrew Kaufman and Larry Wasserman were named for their personal injury defense expertise. …

DEFENDANT’S VERDICT IN TRIP AND FALL IN NASSAU COUNTY SUPREME COURT

April 14,2021

In the very first jury trial held in Nassau County post-covid, partner Larry Wasserman secured a defense verdict! 

In Borges v. Medical Specialties Group LLC, Plaintiff alleged serious injuries including a fractured shoulder and the need for a shoulder replacement. The plaintiff’s trip and fall was allegedly caused by an unsafe 4-to-5-inch curb leading to our client’s medical office building.  …

MSSSV SECURES APPELLATE VICTORY IN PLAINTIFF’S DELAY CASE

The Supreme Court, New York County had dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint due to the plaintiff’s counsel’s repeated failure to provide the defendants with duly executed, HIPAA-compliant authorizations and the plaintiff appealed. 

On appeal, the First Department unanimously affirmed, finding that the Supreme Court “providently exercised its discretion in dismissing the complaint after plaintiff violated multiple orders to produce documentary evidence over the course of approximately 1½  years and finally failed to comply with the orders even after the court had, over defendants’ rigorous objections, given him ‘one last chance’”. …

MSSSV’S EMPLOYMENT GROUP WINS A FEDERAL GENDER EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION CASE FOR THE GREAT NECK SCHOOL DISTRICT ON A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.

In Azab v. Great Neck, the plaintiff claimed that the elimination of the Cleaner-Attendant title was discriminatory.  Plaintiff  asserted her claims under both disparate treatment and disparate impact theories.  In awarding the District summary judgment, the Court concluded that the District’s budgetary cuts were a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the elimination of the Cleaner-attendant positions.  …