Appellate Practice

Appeals are a complex area of the law that require understanding of not only the underlying facts and legal principles applicable to the case at hand, but also of appellate practice and procedure in the various state and federal courts that hear these appeals. Appeals can emanate from interlocutory or final orders.

Interlocutory appeals involve orders that take place during the pendency of the litigation while final orders are given at the conclusion of the matter. Whether our client is the appellant or respondent in an appeal involving interlocutory or final orders or judgments, Hagelin Spencer is committed to providing a cost-effective and comprehensive solution to your appellate needs.

Some examples of our recent appeals are as follows:

Kwiatek v. Seier, 105 A.D.3d 1419 (4th Dep’t 2013)

Plaintiff claimed to have suffered injuries to her spine as the result of a rear-end collision. Hagelin Spencer moved for summary judgment on the issue of serious injury on the basis of an expert physician’s opinion that all injuries predated the accident. Although the trial court denied defendant’s motion, Hagelin Spencer was ultimately successful on appeal in the Appellate Division, Fourth Department. The Fourth Department ultimately found that the plaintiff’s chiropractor’s affidavit failed to establish a serious injury where his opinions were contradicted by the plaintiff’s own records and testimony.

Cash v. Hill, 2014 NY Slip Op. 03058; 2014 NY Slip Op. 03059

Following a head-on collision which resulted in the plaintiff’s death, defendant moved for summary judgment on the issue of negligence under the emergency doctrine. Plaintiff was a passenger in her husband’s vehicle which had swerved into defendant’s lane of travel to avoid a deer that had come into the roadway. Following a denial of the motion at the Supreme Court level, Hagelin Spencer successfully appealed the decision, reversing the finding of the lower court and dismissing the action in its entirety.

Parslow v. Giancursio, et al., 2014 NY Slip Op. 02211

Plaintiff was rendered paraplegic after a fall from a second story window. Plaintiff sought to hold the defendants liable on a theory of negligent supervision of an intoxicated guest, even though the intoxicated guest was the plaintiff himself. Following extensive motion practice in the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, Hagelin Spencer was ultimately successful in dismissing this cause of action, reducing the plaintiff’s avenues of recovery.

Jaoude v. Hannah, et al. – Second Circuit Court of Appeals Docket No. 14-1611

Plaintiff was claiming injuries as the result of two vehicles striking her parked vehicle on a snowy day. After a successful trial in favor of the defendant, the plaintiff unsuccessfully appealed the verdict. Thereafter, plaintiff attempted to bring her claim in federal court. Following successful motion practice in the Western District of New York and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, Hagelin Spencer was able to secure dismissal of the plaintiff’s claim.

McLeod v. Taccone, 2014 NY Slip Op. 08178

After plaintiff was struck on his bicycle while riding across a busy roadway at night, defendant successfully moved against a finding of negligence, on the grounds that any responsibility for the resulting collision rested solely with the plaintiff. Plaintiff appealed the decision to the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, where Hagelin Spencer succeeded in upholding the trial court’s ruling in the defendant’s favor.

Martino v. Stolzman, 18 N.Y.3d 905 (2012)

Defendants hosted a party wherein a guest became intoxicated and attempted to back out of their driveway, impacting the plaintiff’s vehicle. Defendants moved for summary judgment on the issue of negligence. The unfavorable decision at the trial court level was appealed to the Appellate Division, Fourth Department and ultimately, the New York State Court of Appeals, the highest court in New York State. The Court of Appeals found in favor of the defendants and dismissed all claims against them, finding that the defendants had no duty to control the conduct of the intoxicated guests.