Only recently, in January of 2010, McCabe, Collins, Mcgeough & Fowler, LLP., in response to the needs of its clients, formally opened its offices at 651 Delaware Avenue, Suite 119, Buffalo, New York 14202 and brought Tom on board. We have been pleased to see that the office has expanded greatly under Tom’s leadership and look forward to continued expansion while maintaining the same high level of expertise and service upon which our many clients have come to expect and rely.
Locally, we are pleased that our efforts on behalf of our clients have resulted in the successful termination of a number of actions.
Most recently, in Cavolo v. Atlas Health & Fitness, (Sup Richmond County), Justice Maltese granted our client, defendant Atlas and co-defendant summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint. The plaintiff was a young man who was lifting weights in the defendant’s gym on a Smith machine when after completing his last set of repetitions, the bar fell striking him. The plaintiff claimed that the bar struck him in the back of the head causing him substantial head, neck and back injuries and intractable pain. The court held that the plaintiff’s complaint made years earlier that the machine was not operating smoothly was insufficient in view of the fact that the plaintiff had used the machine without complaint for a substantial period
of time, that the defendant Atlas did not have notice of any dangerous or defective condition.
Motor Vehicle / Serious Injury
On August 13, 2010, in Mitrotti v. Elia, Justice Silver, Supreme Court New York County, granted our client’s motion for summary judgment based on the plaintiff’s failure to satisfy the New York State serious injury standard required to maintain a bodily injury action arising from a motor vehicle accident. The court held that our client was entitled to summary judgment despite the fact that the plaintiff claimed to have sustained a herniated disc at C7-T1 and L2-L3, bulging discs at C3 through C7 and bulging discs at L3 through S1 and meniscus tears. The court held that our motion was sufficient to demonstrate entitlement the relief sought and we were successful in arguing that the plaintiff’s proof was inadmissible and insufficient.