Monthly Archives: February 2016

Haydn J. Brill and Corey Reichardt Continue to Garner Honors From Thompson Reuters

Managing Partner Haydn J. Brill and Corey Reichardt were again recognized by Thompson Reuters in 2014 and 2015 for their professional excellence in the legal profession.  Mr. Brill garnered recognition as a New York Metro SuperLawyer and Mr. Reichardt as a New York Metro Rising Star.  Selection to this panel of lawyers is through formal nomination by one’s peers, background research on the lawyer’s results and credentials and evaluation by a “Blue Ribbon” peer  review group with the objective of “creating a credible, comprehensive and diverse listing of outstanding attorneys that can be used as a resource for attorneys and consumers searching for legal counsel.”

By |February 11th, 2016|News|Comments Off

High Court Rules Disclaiming to Tendering Insurer Alone Does Not Satisfy Requirements Under Insurance Law Section 3420

Brill & Associates, P.C. recently secured AI coverage for its client following the New York Court of Appeal’s decision in Sierra v. 4401 Sunset Park, LLC.   Following receipt of Plaintiff’s Complaint in a NYS Labor Law case, the insurer for our clients, the building owner and manager, tendered to the employer’s insurer pursuant to a contractual obligation to obtain additional insured coverage. The employer’s insurer disclaimed coverage based upon ‘late notice’ but sent the disclaimer only to the tendering insurer and not the additional insureds or their attorney. The Court of Appeals ruled that that the disclaimer was ineffective to the Additional Insureds under Section 3420(d) of the Insurance Law which requires a disclaiming insurer to provide notice of its disclaimer to any insured and their counsel. The high court rejected the disclaiming insurer’s argument that the insurance companies were the ‘real parties in interest’  and refused to find an insurer to be the agent of its insured to satisfy the requirements of Insurance Law 3420(d), as opposed to counsel who owe a fiduciary obligation to their clients under all circumstances.  As such, the disclaimer was ruled ineffective against our clients and they received additional insured coverage. Copies of the decision are available at the Court of Appeals website or though our office.

By |February 11th, 2016|News|Comments Off

The New York Court of Appeals Resolves Troubling Issues Regarding the Admissability of Expert Testimony in Sean R. v. BMW of North America LLC et al.

In an unanimous opinion issued today by the New York Court of Appeals, New York’s highest court affirmed a decision by the First Department which precluded the introduction of expert testimony against its client from Drs. Shira Kramer and Linda Frazier who sought to establish that the Plaintiff’s birth defects were causally related to his in utero exposure to unleaded gasoline vapors inhaled by his mother during the first trimester of pregnancy.   This case has garnered significant interest as it has worked its way through the court system.  Justice Pigott writing for the court, distinguished the “inverse approach” utilized by the Plaintiff’s experts to arrive at their conclusions and held that the experts failed to meet their burden of showing their opinions were generally accepted in the scientific community.    Copies of the decision are available from the Court of Appeals website or our office.

By |February 11th, 2016|News|Comments Off