The trial team of Riad Hamai, Jon Pisiewski and Justin Proper of Heskin & Proper, PLLC, secured a favorable settlement in the amount of $575,000.00 during jury trial in Garay v. Jobco Incorporated, et al., Index No.: 609388/2020, in Supreme Court, Suffolk County.
The case stemmed from a personal injury lawsuit arising from a work site accident in which the plaintiff alleged he was injured when he fell from a collapsed scaffold during the new construction of a residential complex at 41 North Phillips Avenue. Our clients were the owner and general contractor for the project. The plaintiff alleged serious injuries requiring four surgeries, including a right knee arthroscopy, left ankle arthroscopy, a cervical discectomy and fusion at C5-6, and a two-level lumbar discectomy and fusion at L3-L5, and claimed an inability to return to work in any capacity along with significant future medical expenses. The plaintiff had an outstanding Workers’ Compensation lien in the amount of approximately $260,000.00, and, it was revealed during trial, a litigation funding balance of approximately $350,000.00.
Liability under Labor Law §240(1) had been established against our clients prior to trial, leaving damages as the sole issue to be tried. In the weeks leading up to and during trial, the defense team took an aggressive approach, filing multiple Orders to Show Cause that ultimately bore significant fruit. Through effective cross-examination, the plaintiff was caught in perjurious testimony, plaintiff’s counsel was compelled to withdraw claims for injuries to the left ankle due to questions raised by the trial team about the propriety of Dr. Persich’s credentials and right knee due to plaintiff having represented that treating physician, Dr. Upendra Sinha, was deceased and calling substitute witness Dr. Louis Rose, when it was revealed that Dr. Sinha was instead alive and on personal leave, as well as all lost earnings claims, substantially reducing the damages at issue. Prior to spinal surgeon Dr. Andrew Merola taking the stand, and after the trial team raised significant questions concerning his testimony in opposition to plaintiff’s motion to limit questioning, the matter settled.