Congdon Flaherty O'Callaghan
Free Consultation

Case Results

27530

Experience Tested in the Courtroom
Defending Clients Across Complex Matters

CFO Legal represents businesses, insurers, municipalities, school districts, property owners, contractors, and other clients in complex civil litigation throughout New York State and Federal courts. Our attorneys handle a broad range of matters involving municipal and school district defense, motor vehicle accidents, premises liability, products liability, Labor Law and construction site claims, appellate matters, property damage, construction defects, and property subrogation.

The cases featured below highlight representative matters handled by our firm and the strategies used to protect our clients’ interests. Explore our case results to learn more about CFO Legal’s litigation experience and our commitment to pursuing efficient, practical, and favorable outcomes.

*Past performance does not guarantee future results.

July 2026
Reem Taima v. East 54th Street Properties LLC, et al. (Index No. 159794/2020)
 

Brief Description of Case:

Plaintiff sought damages for personal injuries allegedly sustained when she tripped and fell on a sidewalk or walkway located within or adjacent to a construction site at 232 East 54th Street in Manhattan. Our client, Quality Facility Solutions Corp. (“QFS”), contracted to provide laborers for the project and subcontracted that work to BIM Cleaning Services, Inc. The laborers performed basic construction cleanup work with brooms and shovels under the direction and supervision of the property owner/construction manager.
 

Court or Jury’s Decision and Reasoning:

We successfully established that neither QFS nor its subcontractor, BIM Cleaning Services, installed, maintained, inspected, or repaired the allegedly defective wire mesh walkway and that there was no evidence that either entity committed any independent act of negligence that caused or contributed to plaintiff’s accident. We further demonstrated that the property owner/construction manager was not entitled to common law indemnification from QFS because any liability imposed upon it would necessarily arise from its own negligence.

We also successfully argued that contractual indemnification was unavailable because the property owner/construction manager was not subject to statutory or purely vicarious liability. Accordingly, any judgment against it would necessarily be predicated upon its own negligence, rendering enforcement of the indemnification provision impermissible under General Obligations Law § 5- 322.1. Plaintiff did not oppose QFS’s motion, although the property owner/construction manager submitted opposition. By Decision and Order dated July 21, 2026, the Court granted QFS’s motion for summary judgment, dismissing plaintiff’s complaint and all cross claims asserted against QFS.
 

Attorneys:

Summary Judgment Motion was Drafted by Michael Reagan
 

Party We Represent:

Quality Facility Solutions Corp.
 

Venue:

Supreme Court, New York County
 

Date:

July 21, 2026

Index Number:
159794/2020
 
Got a Case? Get a Free Consultation

April 2026
Felix Rodriguez v. Pisco LLC and Capital AMD USA Inc. (Index No. 706472/2015)
 

Brief Description of Case:

Plaintiff sought damages for personal injuries allegedly sustained during the course of his employment as a restaurant manager when he slipped and fell down a set of kitchen stairs due to alleged “soapy water” on the stairs. Our client, AMD USA, Inc., a restaurant supply company, had sold two commercial dishwashers to plaintiff’s employer, Pio Restaurant. However, our client did not service or repair the dishwashers and had no maintenance or repair contract with the restaurant. When dishwasher service was requested, AMD referred the work to an independent dishwasher repair contractor.
 

Court or Jury’s Decision and Reasoning:

We successfully argued that AMD owed no duty to plaintiff and did not create or exacerbate the alleged dangerous condition through any negligent dishwasher maintenance or repair. We further established that plaintiff did not detrimentally rely upon AMD to maintain the premises or stairway and that AMD had no comprehensive and exclusive property maintenance agreement that displaced the property owner’s duty to safely maintain the premises.

Accordingly, there was no basis upon which AMD could be held liable for the alleged condition that caused plaintiff’s accident. The Court agreed and granted AMD’s motion for summary judgment, dismissing plaintiff’s complaint and all cross claims asserted against our client.
 

Attorneys:

Summary Judgment Motion was Drafted by Michael Reagan
 

Party We Represent:

AMD USA, Inc.
 

Venue:

Supreme Court, Queens County
 

Date:

April 2, 2026

Index Number:
706472/2015
 
Got a Case? Get a Free Consultation

March 2026
James Lawes III, Michelle Brown-Lawes, Triniti Jones, and Dawn Jones v. Hewlett-Woodmere Union Free School District
 

Brief Description of Case:

Plaintiffs sought damages for personal injuries allegedly sustained following a varsity basketball game at George W. Hewlett High School. After the game concluded, a group of opposing players and spectators returned to the school building and allegedly assaulted plaintiffs in a hallway. Plaintiffs alleged that the School District negligently supervised the students and failed to provide adequate security.
 

Court or Jury’s Decision and Reasoning:

We successfully argued that the School District lacked actual or constructive notice of any foreseeable risk of an assault. The District’s witnesses uniformly testified that there was no prior history of verbal or physical altercations between the two schools, their teams, or their spectators. The assailants were never identified, and there was no evidence that the District knew or should have known that any individual posed a risk of assaultive conduct. The Court further rejected plaintiffs’ reliance upon routine competitive conduct during the basketball game as insufficient to establish notice of the subsequent assault.

We also successfully argued that plaintiffs’ inadequate security claim failed because the provision of school security constitutes a governmental function and plaintiffs failed to establish the existence of a special duty or special relationship running specifically to them. Accordingly, the Court granted summary judgment dismissing the complaint in its entirety.
 

Attorneys:

Summary Judgment Motion was Drafted by Michael Reagan
 

Party We Represent:

Hewlett-Woodmere Union Free School District
 

Venue:

Supreme Court, Nassau County
 

Date:

March 23, 2026

Index Number:
605018/2019
 
Got a Case? Get a Free Consultation

March 2026
Iris Rodriguez v. Seaward Housing LLC, et al. (Index No. 25336/2020E)
 

Brief Description of Case:

Plaintiff sought damages for personal injuries allegedly sustained when she tripped and fell on defective flooring near the kitchen area of her apartment. The flooring consisted of square linoleum tiles installed over cement, and plaintiff described the tiles where she allegedly fell as “a little bit lifted, not totally detached.” Plaintiff alleged that this condition constituted a dangerous and defective condition for which defendants were liable.
 

Court or Jury’s Decision and Reasoning:

We successfully argued that the alleged condition constituted a trivial defect and was therefore non-actionable as a matter of law. In support of the summary judgment motion, we relied upon numerous Appellate Division decisions finding similar, and even more significant, flooring defects to be trivial. Significantly, we reproduced within the memorandum of law the photographs relied upon by the Appellate Division in those cases, allowing the Court to directly compare those conditions with the alleged defect at issue here. This demonstrated that defects more pronounced than the condition described by plaintiff had consistently been found non-actionable as a matter of law. The Court agreed and determined that the alleged flooring condition constituted a trivial defect. Accordingly, our motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was granted.
 

Attorneys:

Summary Judgment Motion was Drafted by Michael Reagan
 

Party We Represent:

Seaward Housing LLC and Clemens Capital Partners LLC
 

Venue:

Supreme Court, Bronx County
 

Date:

March 6, 2026

Index Number:
25339/2020E
 
Got a Case? Get a Free Consultation

June 2025
Nicole Rennie, Individually and as Mother and Natural Guardian of Infant, S.C. v. Sewanhaka Central High School District
 

Brief Description of Case:

The infant plaintiff was injured during a culinary class. He alleged that, while he was slicing potatoes, another student grabbed a mandoline slicer from him, causing him to slice his finger on the mandoline slicer’s blade. Infant plaintiff’s mother sued the School District, individually and on behalf of her son. The plaintiffs alleged that the infant plaintiff was injured because of a dangerous condition and that the culinary class was negligently supervised.
 

Court or Jury’s Decision and Reasoning:

We successfully argued and demonstrated prima facie that the infant plaintiff was adequately instructed on use of the mandolin slicer and that the alleged inadequate supervision was not the proximate cause of the injury. The Court agreed, in part because there was one mandolin slicer in the classroom and students were instructed to share it. In addition, the witnesses testified that the incident happened over a matter of seconds, so any alleged lack of supervision was not a proximate cause of the injury. The Court further agreed that the mandolin was not a dangerous condition because the infant claimant testified that it did not look broken or defective, and he had no problems using it for its intended purpose. Accordingly, our motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was granted.
 

Attorneys:

Summary Judgment Motion was Drafted by Matthew Garber
 

Party We Represent:

Sewanhaka Central High School District
 

Venue:

Supreme Court, Nassau County
 

Date:

June 2025
 
Got a Case? Get a Free Consultation

February 2025
L.I., an infant by her mother and natural guardian, Ann Isaacs v. Sachem Central School District
 

Brief Description of Case:

This claim arose out of a slip and fall that occurred in a stairwell at the Sequoya Middle School. The infant plaintiff attended a session for extra help before classes began for the day. The weather outside was wet and raining. After the session ended, the infant plaintiff slipped and fell down an entire flight of stairs. It was alleged that the wet condition arose as a result of over 700 students arriving for school. Plaintiffs’ counsel alleged that the School District was negligent in its ownership, operation, management, supervision, maintenance, and control of the premises. The alleged injuries included a compression fracture of the spine and allegations of knee injuries that resulted in surgeries.
 

Court or Jury’s Decision and Reasoning:

We successfully obtained a defense verdict by arguing that the School District maintained the premises in a satisfactory condition. Plaintiffs’ counsel failed to prove the existence of a defective condition was the proximate cause of the slip and fall accident. The plaintiffs’ counsel’s entire argument rested on the School District’s alleged constructive notice of the dangerous condition. The defense presented the School District’s Chief Custodian who provided beneficial testimony resulting in a verdict in favor of the School District.

 

Attorneys:

Defense Verdict Obtained by Paula Pavlides
 

Party We Represent:

Sachem Central School District
 

Venue:

Supreme Court, Suffolk County
 

Date:

February 2025
 
Got a Case? Get a Free Consultation

January 2025
Juan Moran v. BK Elwood LLC et al v. HPHM, Inc.
 

Brief Description of Case:

Plaintiff allegedly sustained injuries when, while assisting his supervisor and other employees in unloading trees from a flatbed truck through the use of an excavator, he was struck by the bucket of the excavator being operated by his employer, third-party defendant, HPHM. Plaintiff alleged that our client violated Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), and 241(6). We moved for summary dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint, and for summary judgment against plaintiff’s employer, HPHM, upon our contractual indemnification third party claim.
 

Court or Jury’s Decision and Reasoning:

As concerns plaintiff’s complaint, we successfully argued: (1) that Labor Law § 200 did not apply because our client did not exercise supervisory control over the means and methods employed by plaintiff in the performance of his work; (2) that Labor Law § 240(1) did not apply because: (a) plaintiff was not engaged in a statutorily protected activity at the time of his injury; and, even if he was, (b) plaintiff’s accident resulted from the lateral movement of the excavator’s bucket and was thus not ‘gravity related;’ and (3) that Labor Law § 241(6) did not apply because the plaintiff was engaged in landscaping work at the time of the accident, not construction or any other statutorily protected activity.

With regard to our contractual indemnification third-party claim, we successfully argued that plaintiff’s accident – and our client’s putative liability – arose out of HPHM’s work, and that our client was not negligent, thus triggering HPHM’s indemnification obligation.
 

Attorneys:

Summary Judgment Motion was Drafted by Michael Reagan
 

Party We Represent:

BK Elwood LLC et al
 

Venue:

Supreme Court, Nassau County
 

Date:

January 2025
 
Got a Case? Get a Free Consultation

January 2025
Carlos Lopez v. C&L Realty Inc., Heidtmann & Sons, Inc., and 61600 Main Road LLC v. KOFC Inc.
 

Brief Description of Case:

Plaintiff sustained injuries when, while cutting wood with a table saw, a makeshift ladder scaffold situated in close proximity shifted sideways and fell, striking him and causing his left hand and wrist to come in contact with the saw. Plaintiff alleged that our client violated Labor Law § 200/common-law negligence, § 240(1), and § 241(6) (predicated upon alleged violations of, inter alia, New York Industrial Coded provisions §§ 23-1.12(c)(2), and 1.21(b)(4)(i)).
 

Court or Jury’s Decision and Reasoning:

The Court granted summary judgment and dismissed plaintiff’s Labor Law § 200/common-law negligence claim(s), crediting our argument that the accident arose out of the means and methods of plaintiff’s work – as opposed to the existence of a dangerous/defective property condition – over which our client did not exercise supervisory control. The Court further dismissed plaintiff’s Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action, holding that the mere fact that plaintiff was struck by an object that fell in and of itself did not give rise to liability under the statute, and that the scaffold law did not apply because the danger that the plaintiff encountered was wholly unrelated to the hazards which Labor Law § 240(1)’s ‘safety devices’ were meant to remediate. As concerns Labor Law § 241(6), the court determined 22 NYCRR 23-1.21(b)(4) – which requires that ladders regularly used to access different levels of a building or structure be secured before use – to be inapplicable, predicated upon demonstration that the extension ladder in question was a component of the makeshift scaffold utilized by plaintiff’s employer’s workers to perform their work, as opposed to a tool utilized to access different levels of a structure or building. As concerns 22 NYCRR 23-1.12(c)(2) – which requires that table saws be equipped with guard covers – the court determined a question of fact to exist concerning whether same was violated, predicated upon plaintiff’s testimony that the table saw at issue lacked a safety guard.
 

Attorneys:

Summary Judgment Motion was Drafted by Michael Reagan
 

Party We Represent:

61600 Main Road LLC
 

Venue:

Supreme Court, Suffolk County
 

Date:

January 2025
 
Got a Case? Get a Free Consultation

When The Stakes Are High
Put a Focused Defense Team Behind Your Next Move.

Turn to CFO Legal in Uniondale, NY for strategic representation focused on protecting your interests, controlling risk, and achieving the best possible result.
Get a Free Consultation Call: (516) 542-5900