Law Firm News

---

Law Firm News

Firm Name

News Title

News

News Date

25383 matches |  13049-13055 displayed

1  1861 1862 1863 1864 1865  3627

---

Gilbert, Heintz & Randolph, L.L.P.

Gilbert Heintz & Randolph LLP Elects New Partners
Gilbert Heintz & Randolph LLP (GHR) is pleased to announce that Jennifer A. Brennan and Chidi J. Ogene have been elected partners of the Firm, effective January 1, 2007.

"The decision was an easy one," commented Scott Gilbert, GHR's Managing Partner. "Both Jen and Chidi are terrific attorneys whose work on behalf of the Firm's clients has been outstanding. We are delighted to welcome them into the partnership, and we are quite confident that we will continue to see great things from them."

Jennifer Brennan has been associated with GHR since the Firm's inception in 2001. Her area of specialization is a combination of complex dispute resolution and general litigation. Prior to joining GHR, Jen was an associate at Dickstein Shapiro Morin & Oshinsky LLP. She received her J.D., summa cum laude, from American University, Washington College of Law in 1999 and her B.A., cum laude, from Charelton College in 1994. Jen is admitted to the bar in both Maryland and the District of Columbia.

Chidi Ogene joined GHR as an associate May 2003. Prior to joining GHR he was a corporate associate at Sullivan & Cromwell in Washington, DC. At GHR, Chidi focuses his practice on the resolution, through transactional and other methods, of complex multiparty disputes at the intersection of mass tort liability, insurance law and bankruptcy law. A native of Enugu, Nigeria, Chidi received his J.D., cum laude, from Georgetown University Law Center and his M.B.A. from Georgetown University School of Business in 1997. He received his B.L. degree from Nigerian Law School in 1990 and his L.L.B. from University of Nigeria Faculty of Law in 1989. Chidi is admitted to the bar in New York and the District of Columbia.

12-21-2006

---

Gibson & Behman, P.C.

GIBSON & BEHMAN’S CONNECTICUT OFFICE PREVAILS AT TEMPORARY INJUNCTION HEARING
Ted Heiser of G&B’s Connecticut office recently prevailed at a temporary injunction hearing wherein the plaintiff was attempting to stop the sale of a particular unit in Savin Park condominiums. The plaintiff also claimed that he was entitled to attorneys fees because the condo association’s conduct was a willful and wanton violation of his rights.

Savin Park Condo Association was attempting to sell unit 36 and the plaintiff objected to the sale, claiming it was a portion of the common area and therefore required unanimous consent of the other condo owners. The plaintiff originally objected to the sale because the Association owns unit 36 and rents it out, and the plaintiff theorized that said ownership made the unit a common area, though it is listed in the Association’s Declaration as a living unit. The Association had previously attempted to make unit 36 a common area but failed. The Court noted that this attempt shows that the Association was aware of unit 36’s designation as a living unit, as was the plaintiff, who was a member of the Association’s board. The Court also found that there was no prohibition in the Association’s Declaration prohibiting it from owning a unit and then selling said unit.

The Court found that the plaintiff did not meet his burden of proof that unit 36 had become a common area and therefore the Association did not need unanimous consent to sell the unit. The Court also denied the plaintiff’s claims for injunctive relief and attorney’s fees and entered the judgment with costs.

12-21-2006

---

Gibson & Behman, P.C.

GIBSON & BEHMAN'S NEW YORK OFFICE WINS PREMISES LIABILITY CASE
Attorney Sharon Portnof Russ of G&B’s New York Office recently obtained a defense verdict in a premises liability case in which the plaintiff claimed that he slipped and fell as a result of the negligence of The Chalet Restaurant, in Roslyn, New York. The plaintiff alleged injuries which included a fracture to the left distal tibia with open reduction and internal fixation and spiral fractures to the distal tibia, mid-shaft of the fibula and the ankle. Plaintiff claimed over $45,000.00 in medical expenses.

At the time of the incident, the plaintiff was using a hand truck to deliver cases of beer to the defendant when he allegedly slipped on a wet floor located inside the establishment, within the restaurant’s entry foyer and between the front door and second door entrance to the premises. Plaintiff claimed that the defendant’s employee removed a weather floor mat from the area and mopped the area immediately prior to plaintiff’s fall, and failed to place any warning signs in the area.

The defendant’s employee testified that it was his general practice to mop and sweep the restaurant between 1:00 pm and 2:00 pm. He further testified that on the day in question, he finished cleaning the restaurant at about 2:00 pm. Significantly, Ms. Russ convinced the jury, through the testimony of the employee and the restaurant owner, that the weather mat was in place and that the incident did not occur as the plaintiff alleged.

The case was tried in the Supreme Court of New York, County of Nassau. The jury deliberated for less than thirty minutes before returning a verdict in favor of Salata Rest. Corp. d/b/a The Chalet Restaurant and Tap Room, with a finding that the plaintiff failed to prove that the defendant was negligent.

12-21-2006

---

Gibson & Behman, P.C.

GIBSON & BEHMAN SPONSORS TEAM IN PELHAM FRITZ BASKETBALL LEAGUE
We are pleased to announce that our firm is sponsoring a Pro-Am basketball team, called The Suns. The team is a member of the Pelham Fritz Basketball League. The Pelham Fritz Basketball League showcases older basketball stars—ex-NCAA Division 1 standouts, playground legends, Rucker Pros, and former NBA greats—all of whom still play a very competitive game of “hoops.”

Gibson & Behman is happy to sponsor the team as we have a commitment to helping communities grow and prosper. The Pelham Fritz League is a charitable organization. Since it’s inception in 1998, the Pelham Fritz Basketball League’s Scholarship Fund has awarded scholarships to deserving high school seniors who have achieved academic excellence and demonstrated dedication to community service. Through the continuing efforts of League members and their sponsors, young men and women have been granted opportunities to pursue academic goals and achievements.

12-21-2006

---

Gibson & Behman, P.C.

G&B FLORIDA TEAM OVERCOMES THE “COMMON [BUILDING] CODE” IN NEGLIGENCE TRIAL
Attorney Kevin O’Neill of G&B’s Florida office recently had a favorable verdict where the jury found the plaintiff to be 98% negligent in a slip and fall at a restaurant. The plaintiffs, a morbidly obese woman and her husband, alleged that she fell down a two-step area in an insured’s restaurant during a weekly backgammon tournament.

Plaintiffs alleged that the step-down area was unsafe, defective and violated several local building and fire code provisions. She and her husband had also testified extensively regarding her problematic right femur multiple fracture injury, difficult course of recovery and ultimate wheelchair-bound limited lifestyle. While there was no denying a serious leg injury from her fall, G&B defended by adamantly maintaining that the stair area was safe, that plaintiff’s comparative fault in encountering an open and obvious condition caused her to fall, that her clearly deficient compliance with rehabilitation protocols by not losing significant weight caused her complications and that the insured restaurant was simply not responsible for her wheelchair bound outcome. Plaintiffs had demanded damages of $969,000, including $56,000 for past medical bills, $60,000 for future medical bills, $100,000 for loss of consortium and approximately $753,000 for pain and suffering.

After considering all the evidence, the jury determined that plaintiff was only entitled to damages totaling $156,000 and then entered a finding that she was 98% comparatively negligent for falling down the steps. As such, despite a formal Demand for Judgment of $750,000 and their final settlement demand at mediation before trial of $350,000, plaintiffs recovered a judgment of $3,120 and court costs.

12-21-2006

---

Gibson & Behman, P.C.

Connecticut Small Claims Court Moves to Centralized Adminstration
The Connecticut Judicial Branch has recently centralized the administration of the Small Claims Courts due to budgetary constraints and lack of space. The purpose of the change was to allow the Judicial Branch to handle small claims matters more efficiently and provide more consistent service to the public. However, the centralization has been the source of some confusion in that hearing dates are now assigned 90 to 120 days after filing the complaint. Prior to the centralization, the hearing dates were assigned 30 to 60 days after filing the complaint. Although the small claims court is centralized, the hearings and/or trials are still held in the geographic area in which the claim arose. We assume that the kinks in the administration will be worked out and hearing dates will return to the prior schedule. Nonetheless, for the foreseeable future, you can expect a two to three month delay in receiving hearing dates.

12-21-2006

---

Gibson & Behman, P.C.

Gibson & Behman’s Burlington Office Obtains Order Prohibiting City of Springfield, MA and Springfield Finance Control Boardfrom Collecting and Enforcing Trash Collection Fee
Attorneys Brandon H. Moss and Thomas J. Holloway of G&B’s Burlington Office won a huge victory as they obtained a preliminary injunction from the Hampden Superior Court preventing the City of Springfield, MA and the Springfield Finance Control Board from further collecting or attempting to collect the so-called $90 per container trash fee against property owners.

Ten taxpayers, including State Representative Cheryl Coakley-Rivera, filed suit on October 30th claiming that this measure, designed to raise $4.5 million, was an improper tax and not a fee. At issue is a June 27, 2006, Executive Order issued by the Board establishing a $90 annual fee for each city-provided automated trash container, with limited exemptions and discounts for this so-called trash fee. The Board was originally established to assist the City with balancing its budget. The distinction between a tax and a fee is significant because cities and towns in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts do not have the power to levy, assess or collect taxes such as the trash fee.

The first installment of the bills for this so-called $90 per container trash fee was mailed on November 1. Associate Justice Constance M. Sweeney wrote, “I find that the plaintiffs proved that the city’s trash collection fee is substantially a tax rather than a fee.” The opinion further states, “Is the $90 trash fee an illegal tax? For Fiscal Year 2007 there is no question that it is a tax.” The injunction: (1) prohibits the city from collecting or attempting to collect the trash fee; (2) requires the Board notify all individuals and entities charged the trash fee that the Executive Order is suspended and not to make payment unless a future court order is issued to the contrary; (3) preliminarily enjoins the City from placing a lien on any property for failure to pay the trash fee; (4) requires the City to segregate and deposit any payments made thus far from the fee into an interest-bearing account; and (5) requires the City Auditor to account for any payments received thus far from the trash fee and to provide a written accounting of the same to the court by December 4, 2006.

To date, the City of Springfield has not taken any action to appeal the Court’s preliminary injunction.

12-21-2006

---

25383 matches |  13049-13055 displayed

1  1861 1862 1863 1864 1865  3627