Law Offices of Jonathan M. Cooper

In this article, and in the context of the April 12 Chinatown fire that consumed an entire building, Long Island, New York personal injury and negligence attorney Jonathan Cooper discusses how you can prove that a building owner's negligence was responsible for an accident under New York law. For additional information on New York accident cases in general, please visit www.TheNewYorkAccidentBook.com or contact Jonathan Cooper directly at 516.791.5700.

Labels: burn accident new york chinatown building fire clothing flammability law new york free book accident claims new york jonathan cooper long island personal injury attorney negligence new york law personal injury lawyer long island

3/28/2010
Jonathan Cooper
Comments (0)

Finally, New York State to Allow E-Filing of Claims Against New York City

In this blog piece, Long Island, New York school negligence and personal injury lawyer Jonathan Cooper discusses how a new law that is scheduled to become effective this coming fall stands to benefit those with claims against New York City. For additional information on how to prosecute claims against New York municipalities, including New York City, please visit www.JonathanCooperLaw.com.

Labels: electronic filing new york jonathan cooper litigation against nyc long island personal injury attorney long island school negligence lawyer notice of claim

3/25/2010
Jonathan Cooper
Comments (0)

How One New Yorker's Slip and Fall Case Survived a Motion to Dismiss

In this article, Long Island, New York slip and fall accident and personal injury lawyer Jonathan Cooper discusses how in a recent case, a plaintiff managed - just barely - to defeat the defendant property owner's motion to dismiss her negligence lawsuit. For additional information on Why Most Accident Victims Do Not Recover the Full Value of Their Claim in New York, please download a FREE copy of the New York Guide to Accident Cases from www.TheNewYorkAccidentBook.com.

Labels: free book accident claims new york jonathan cooper long island personal injury attorney negligence new york law slip and fall accident new york trip and fall accident long island lawyer

1/24/2010
Jonathan Cooper
Comments (0)

When New York Lawyers Try To Defend The Indefensible

In a scathing decision, a federal judge recently sanctioned attorneys who effectively fostered over one year of needless litigation because they refused to disclose that the subject of the litigation had already been rendered moot. For more articles and information pertaining to commercial litigation, accident and defective product claims in New York, please visit www.JonathanCooperLaw.com.

Labels: breach of fiduciary duty commercial litigation jonathan cooper

11/5/2009
Jonathan Cooper
Comments (0)

Court Compels Liability Insurer to Defend and Indemnify Landlord - Even Though Landlord Was Never Named on the Tenants' Policy

In an "off-the-beat" case, Kassis v. Ohio Casualty Ins. Co., 12 N.Y.3d 595, 885 N.Y.S.2d 241 (2009), New York's Court of Appeals (the highest court in New York State) held in favor of a landlord - and against his tenant's liability insurer - that since the lease required the tenant to name the landlord as an additional insured on their liability policy for their "mutual benefit," the landlord was automatically deemed an additional insured under the policy, even though the landlord wasn't in fact named on the policy at all. Consequently, by dint of the Court's holding, the insurer was obligated to not only defend the landlord in the underlying personal injury action that arose from a worker's claim that he was injured when he slipped and fell on snow fronting the landlord's property, but the insurer was also required to indemnify the landlord for any settlement or judgment up to the policy's full liability limits.

A word of caution is in order, however, and here's why: a perusal of this decision suggests that this ruling is of limited scope, and confined to the particular facts of this case. Specifically, in rendering the opinion, Chief Judge Lippman notes that the insurance policy in this case had a provision that extended coverage to the named insured as well as “any person or organization whom [the named insured is] required to name as an additional insured."

Nevertheless, this decision serves as yet another reminder to small businesses in New York why you should never assume the validity of an insurer's disclaimer of coverage.

Labels: accident additional insured commercial litigation disclaimer of coverage insurance disclaimer jonathan cooper landlord long island personal injury attorney small business attorney long island tenant

8/23/2009
Jonathan Cooper
Comments (0)

Frivolous Lawsuit: Injured Skydiver Sues In Negligence

Sometimes the courts get it right - and for the right reason.

In Nutley v. Skydive the Ranch, the plaintiff suffered personal injuries when he was forced to rely on his secondary chute rather than on his primary parachute which had failed. In their motion to dismiss the complaint, the Skydive ranch pointed out to the Court that before he embarked on the skydive, the plaintiff had signed an agreement in which he expressly waived his right to sue for the ranch's negligence.

But that's not why the appellate court dismissed the case: under New York law, any contract or agreement between the owner or operator of a facility and a paying customer stating that the owner may not be held liable for its negligence is void and unenforceable (see NY General Obligations Law 5-326). Instead, the appellate court noted that since the plaintiff's claimed injury resulted from a risk that was open and obvious, and inherently part of, the activity of skydiving, the plaintiff voluntarily assumed this risk, and therefore the defendant Skydive ranch could not be held liable for his injuries.

Labels: free book accident claims new york frivolous lawsuit jonathan cooper long island accident attorney negligence New York law personal injuries play at your own risk safety hazard

8/19/2009
Jonathan Cooper
Comments (0)

Misconceptions About the Consequences of Destroying (or Even Losing) Evidence in NY

From the apparently cavalier attitude, by virtue of their utter lack of response, to Apple's claim that they have deliberately destroyed evidence that is critical to Apple's claims for copyright infringement, unfair competition and breach of contract, Psystar seems to believe, or at least would like to give the impression, that Apple's assertion is inconsequential. Here's why they may be wrong - very wrong.

Misconception #1 - If I Destroy Evidence That The Other Side Needs For Their Case, It's Their Problem, Not Mine - This notion is patently false. As noted in "The Penalties For Destroying or Losing Critical Evidence," the Court is obliged to assure that your loss of the evidence does not unfairly prejudice the other side's ability to prosecute its claim or defense.
Misconception #2 - If I Merely Lost the Evidence, Rather Than Deliberately Destroyed It, The Court Will Not Sanction Me - Though this used to be the rule in New York, it hasn't been true for over 10 years. Since 1997, New York's courts have increasingly held that where the critical piece of evidence has been retained by a party - even just in anticipation of litigation, and that piece of evidence is negligently lost or destroyed, the responsible party's claims or defenses may be dismissed.

In short, don't be fooled into thinking that the loss of evidence is without consequences.

Labels: breach of contract new york attorney destruction of evidence ny jonathan cooper loss of evidence ny spoliation of evidence new york lawyer

7/21/2009
Jonathan Cooper
Comments (0)

Another Way To Curb NY Medical Malpractice/Negligence Lawsuits: Saying You're Sorry

Yesterday, msnbc published a fascinating story on the University of Michigan Health System, which, unlike nearly every other health care facility in the Country, has seen the number of medical malpractice claims (and concurrently, the amounts paid out on claims) against it cut in half over the last several years. This is no fluke. Their secret? When they make a mistake, they own up to it and apologize. In the words of their general counsel, they are practicing "basic common decency." As a corollary to this approach, this particular health care system actively tries to make fair offers to resolve meritorious cases early on, rather than allowing the cases to wind their way through the court system for years, and in the process, incurring higher defense costs. Not surprisingly, this tactic tends to lessen the patients' anger, and less likely to sue. Given the obvious logic and fantastic success of this program, it is apparent that this approach should be made a central component of any tort reform package, don't you think?

Labels: insurance premiums jonathan cooper long island accident attorney medical malpractice medical negligence negligence tort reform

7/16/2009
Jonathan Cooper
Comments (0)

NY Court Shows Why Speculation Is No Substitute For Qualifications When It Comes to Selecting An Expert

In a decision that was handed down on July 7, New York's Appellate Division, First Department (which, as set forth previously, oversees the courts in the Bronx and Manhattan) issued a stark reminder, particularly to those attorneys who practice in the personal injury arena, that before someone's "expert" opinion will be given any deference, it must be shown that this individual has the pertinent training, certifications and familiarity with the relevant laws, rules and regulations in that field.

In this case, Schechter v. 3320 Holding, LLC, the plaintiff sustained serious personal injuries when he opened an elevator door and stepped into an empty elevator shaft. In opposing plaintiff's arguments that the defendant building owner and elevator maintenance company should be deemed automatically liable for this elevator accident, the defendants relied on the testimony of an elevator maintenance employee, who opined that the interlock for the cab door had malfunctioned because both excess mop water and urine had gotten into the interlock, and caused it to stop working. In reversing the lower court's order, the appellate court rejected this argument out of hand, holding that the defendants' employee could not be considered an expert regarding elevator maintenance because he had no formal training or education regarding elevators, and was unfamiliar with the relevant codes and regulations. Although there was a dissenting judge to this opinion, I think the courts should take a more active role in assuring that the parties' experts are indeed appropriately qualified before accepting their opinion or giving it any deference.

Labels: appeal elevator accident new york expert jonathan cooper long island elevator accident attorney personal injury lawyer long island

7/6/2009
Jonathan Cooper
Comments (0)

One Reason You Don't Want A Jury Trial: An Inconsistent Verdict

Recently, a Queens County jury awarded a woman of Chinese-American descent, who claimed that her Flushing, Queens cooperative board had discriminated against her, $225,000. While that verdict, in and of itself, isn't particularly blog-worthy, a closer reading of the jury's finding is: the jury awarded the plaintiff money damages even though they did not believe that the plaintiff had proved that the coop board had been guilty of racism.

Not surprisingly, the coop board has indicated that they intend to appeal this verdict.

This case serves as a useful reminder that a jury's verdict is often unpredictable, and may be internally inconsistent. Consequently, a jury's verdict may not give the parties to the lawsuit the finality that they might otherwise expect; it may only lead to further appeals (and legal bills).

Labels: appeal award damages flushing jonathan cooper jury trial jury verdict queens

6/14/2009
Jonathan Cooper
Comments (0)

Study Claims That Employee Theft Rises as Economy Worsens

I recently came across an interesting blog post entitled "Does Theft Go Up In Economic Downturn?" which cited a study discussing whether there is a documented, proven connection between the state of the overall economy and job market and the rate of theft and other dishonest or counterproductive acts (such as a breach of fiduciary duty) by company employees.

One interesting theory in the study was promulgated by researchers from DePaul University, who articulated an "Employee Risk Triangle" theory of employee theft. Basically, this theorry subscribes to the notion that when 3 factors work together - need, attidude and opportunity - the likelihood of employee dishonesty rises dramatically.

According to this theory, although the any of these factors could manifest before the others, one scenario where the 3 factors could intersect would be as follows: due to a slumping economy, a company is forced to lay off many workers, and reduce (as well as eliminate) managerial positions. The resulting uncertaintly about their job security causes many employees to start feeling apathathetic about their jobs [attitude]; concurrently, some of these employees' spouses lose their jobs, putting them under greater financial strain [need]; finally, due to the reduced supervisory oversight on the job and co-employees' own degree of distraction, co-workers may be more apt to look the other way or outright ignore others' unethical behavior [opportunity].

Leaving aside my questions about the scientific reliability of this study, it seems to me that from the small business owner's perspective, the study, and the blog post quoting it, suffer from two flawed assumptions: (1) that the majority of people will falter if their ethics are put to the test (see my earlier blog article "Employee Theft Insurance Policies and the Culture That Spawned Them"); and, (2) that unless you use pre-fabricated tests to screen prospective employees, you are all but guaranteed to hire people of dubious character (paradoxically, although the blog post cites the study for the proposition that employees' ethics can be compromised as circumstances change, the blog post is silent on the issue of ongoing screening of existing employees).

Nevertheless, I think the study serves as a useful reminder to adhere strictly to Dan Kennedy's maxim: hire slow, fire fast.

Labels: breach of fiduciary duty dishonest employee economic recession economy employee theft insurance jonathan cooper small business small business attorney long island

6/5/2009
Jonathan Cooper
Comments (0)

The Most Important Thing For Any Trial Witness To Remember

Sometimes those of us who litigate and try cases for a living, whether in the context of small business litigation, personal injury or defective products lawsuits, tend to get "tunnel vision," and fail to see the forest for the trees. That's why an otherwise unremarkable jury verdict out of the Federal Court in Brooklyn, New York is important: it is a potent reminder to trial lawyers everywhere to remain mindful of the credibility of your witnesses in evaluating the viability and value your case.

In this particular case, there was a stark factual discrepancy between the plaintiff, who alleged that he was pushed off the roof of a 3 story apartment building by a police officer that was chasing him, and the police officer's claim that the plaintiff was in the process of running away from the police when the plaintiff lost his grip on the roof's ledge.

The jury sided with the plaintiff, finding more credible the claim by plaintiff. I suspect that the reason they bought plaintiff's version of events is because he conceded that the police officer did not intend to push him off the roof; according to the plaintiff, the police officer merely intended to push him off of a short 2 foot high paparet wall. And by conceding that small point, or "giving a little," he got a lot: the jury awarded him $4.6 million in damages for his personal injuries, which were quite severe: a fractured spine which resulted in paralysis.

Labels: brooklyn defective products fracture jonathan cooper jury litigation paralysis personal injury small business attorney long island spine trial attorney

6/3/2009
Jonathan Cooper
Comments (0)

Building A Winning Case

I just came across an interesting blog post by one of my favorite bloggers, Seth Godin, entitled "Won By A Walk." In this post, he highlights how commentators on a recent New York Mets game, as is often the case in sporting events, attribute the outcome of the game to a relatively insignificant play - in this case a walk - when in truth, that play which ended the game was only made possible by that which preceded it, e.g., the runners who got on base before that fateful walk.

I think the same is true regarding lawsuits, whether they be in the small business context, defective products or personal injury; although trial lawyers often get the glory, the rewards you reap at the end of the case are often sown in the preparation and work that you did to get to that point. Otherwise, the "walk" could end up just getting you a runner on base rather than driving in the winning run.

Labels: defective products jonathan cooper personal injury small business attorney long island trial lawyer

5/3/2009
Jonathan Cooper
Comments (0)

Bronx Man Dies in Tragic Elevator Accident

In a tragic incident that occurred on Friday, May 1, a blind 67 year-old man from Riverdale, in the Bronx section of New York, fell to his death when, after the door to his 10-floor building's elevator opened, he stepped into an empty elevator shaft. By that same afternoon, New York City's Department of Buildings concluded that the elevator accident occurred because the safety device on the elevator door had malfunctioned, allowing the door to open even though the elevator had not yet arrived.

In interviews with reporters, some of the building's tenants claimed that there had been ongoing elevator maintenance and repair work at the building for several weeks prior to this incident.Some building residents said the elevators had been worked on for weeks.

Not surprisingly, this was not the first problem with this particular elevator; however, it does not appear that this elevator ever experienced the same problem that was responsible for this accident beforehand. In an interview with the New York Times, elevator consultant Scott Hayes opined that the mechanical devices that are designed to assure that the elevator's outer door remains shut until the elevator has arrived can occasionally become defective due to wear and tear or inadequate, improper or negligent maintenance. For this reason, he recommended the obvious: that elevator passengers peer through the elevator door's window to assure that the elevator has arrived before opening the door and stepping into the shaft. He conceded, however, that this advice wouldn't prove effective in this case, where the person was legally blind.

For more information on building owners' and elevator repair company's liability for elevator accidents, see "Elevator Accidents and Injuries Under New York Law."

Labels: bronx elevator accident lawyer jonathan cooper negligent maintenance repair New York law personal injury lawyer long island riverdale

3/29/2009
Jonathan Cooper
Comments (0)

How Videotapes Can Dramatically Impact Upon Your NY Personal Injury Lawsuit

In this article, Long Island, NY personal injury and trial lawyer Jonathan Cooper discusses how a videotape can have a dramatic impact upon how both liability and damages are perceived by a trial jury in New York. For additional FREE information on accident cases generally under New York law, please visit www.JonathanCooperLaw.com.

Labels: car crash intersection collision lawsuit New York personal injury attorney video videotape

3/11/2009
Jonathan Cooper
Comments (0)

Why Defamation Lawsuits Are Often A Waste of Time and Money Under NY Law

In a decision that is scheduled to appear in tomorrow's print edition of the New York Law Journal, Brooklyn Supreme Court Justice Edwards has dismissed a plaintiff's defamation lawsuit. In plain English, the plaintiff in this case claimed that that the defendant had publicized nasty allegations about her. Interestingly, the Court did not dismiss the case because the plaintiff's claims were not credible; to the contrary, the Court explicitly noted that the defendant had all but admitted making those derogatory statements. Rather, the Court dismissed the case because the plaintiff for the simple reason that she had not produced "one scintilla" of proof that she had sustained any damages as a direct result of the defendant's actions.

I find this decision disturbing, because if accurate, the plaintiff's attorneys should never have taken the case. What were they thinking?

Pretty much every case has two elements: liability and damages. Even under the best case scenario, such as where the defendant concedes liability, your case remains worthless if you have sustained no personal injuries or damages. For example, if Ithe defendant runs a red light (or stop sign) as a pedestrian is proceeding through the crosswalk, and the defendant manages to avoid hitting or injuring the pedestrian, what do you think that pedestrian's damages are? That's right - zero; the pedestrian should be grateful.

The same analysis should hold true here. If the plaintiff sustained no demonstrable or provable damages as a result of the defamation (which more often than not will be the case so long as it remains in the private, rather than small business or commercial context), the defendant could get up and admit making the statements, but it will not change the ultimate result of the case - that it is worthless.

Labels: business litigation lawyer new york commercial litigation attorney new york defamation new york lawyer jonathan cooper personal injury lawyer long island slander attorney new york

3/8/2009
Jonathan Cooper
Comments (0)

Trial Lawyers As Part of the Solution to Wall Street Greed: A Radical Concept?

In a blog posted lasted week, Matt Miller floats a radical suggestion to recover those obscene bonuses that were paid out by Wall Street firms who had just taken billions in U.S. taxpayer aid: hire a class action trial lawyer who will take the case on a contingent fee.

William Lerach, who would have been the natural choice to lead the charge, is unfortunately unavailable to take this case because he is currently in the middle of a two-year prison term. But that doesn't mean the idea doesn't have merit. In fact, the blog cites Mr. Lerach's lengthy and detailed response of how such a case would work - the U.S., in one form or another, may actually have standing to bring such a suit against the various banks and their boards of directors. And although there may be some procedural and substantive challenges that would need to be surmounted, he believed that the cases would still be worthwhile, if for no other reason than to serve as a potent deterrent against similar conduct by these financial institutions moving forward.

While it is unclear whether this particular tactic would work, one thing is fairly certain: it certainly stands a greater chance of success than trying to "shame" these bankers into ethical behavior.

Labels: contingent fees trial lawyers

3/4/2009
Jonathan Cooper
Comments (0)

How to Prevent a Product Recall From Destroying Your Small Business

After 2007, which bore the dubious distinction as "The Year of the Recall," and 2008, which saw even more recalls that were undertaken either voluntarily or in response to a governmental demand (not to mention the recent recall of well over 2,000 peanut-based products following the salmonella scare), there were several news reports of small businesses, particularly children's toy distributors and tire suppliers, that openly expressed their fears that any recall of their particular products would force them to close their doors. Strangely, none of these articles discussed a relatively straightforward solution to this threat: defective product or product contamination insurance.

According to A.M. Best Co., this area of insurance, despite the economic recession, is continuing to grow at a rapid clip of over 30% a year.

If you run a small business that either manufactures or distributes products that could potentially become the subject of a safety recall, it certainly behooves you to ascertain whether this brand of insurance can cover your business; your business's survival may one day depend on it.

Labels: defective product economic recession insurance product contamination small business

2/26/2009
Jonathan Cooper
Comments (0)

Why It May Pay to Fight Your Insurer's Disclaimer of Coverage Under NY Law

In a scathing opinion that chastised some standard insurance practices with regard to their catch-all "reservations of rights" to assert further defenses at a later date, New York's Appellate Division, First Department effectively issued an important reminder to all New York business insureds: don't take the insurer's disclaimer for granted or at face value; it may not be valid, and the insurer can be held liable to you in breach of contract, among other things. To learn more, read our article.

Labels: breach of insurance contract new york business litigation lawyer new york commercial litigation attorney new york disclaimer of coverage new york insurance disclaimer new york lawyer jonathan cooper New York

2/24/2009
Jonathan Cooper
Comments (0)

Electronic Data Discovery - Avoiding Costly Mistakes

In a somewhat scary opinion that was issued last month, the appellate court for the D.C. Circuit affirmed a lower court's order which both sanctioned and held in contempt a non-party for failing to comply with a deadline for the completion of electronic discovery that its attorneys had previously agreed to.

In its opinion, the appellate court refused to consider the non-party's arguments that this discovery request was overly broad and undly burdensome. In particular, the non-party noted that the parties' search terms returned such a broad swath of electronic documents, that several personal e-mails between employees and their spouses (which were clearly irrelevant to the case) came up, and the sheer volume of documents that these search terms returned forced this non-party agency, The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, to hire approximately 50 contract attorneys for this document review, and to incur roughly $6 million in expenses (approximately 10% of this agency's annual budget).

Despite this incredible burden - and by a non-litigant no less - the court remained unpersuaded that the lower court had abused its discretion because OFHEO had already extended - and subsequently disregarded - several deadlines for their compliance with these discovery demands, and their obligation to comply with the terms of their own attorney's agreement was unambiguous.

The lessons to be learned here for New York small businesses that have been called into commercial litigation are clear:

(1) Make sure you have a good estimate about the scope and expense of an anticipated electronic data or document disclosure - BEFORE any agreements are entered into regarding the time and expense of the data production;

(2) DO NOT allow the other parties to determine what the appropriate search terms will be without an appropriate mechanism to assure that you do not end up being required to produce a voluminous amout of records that bear no relation to the case;

(3) Make sure that the manner in which the electronically stored information is to be produced is reduced to writing - this could save you a great deal of time and effort, not to mention trees; and,

(4) In appropriate circumstances, that there are systems in place to assure that the demanding party bears at least some of the expense of the production (parenthetically, this is probably one of the best ways to insure that the demands are streamlined to the relevant discovery, as it is unlikely that the demanding party will want to pay for a bunch of e-mails you had with your brother about his trip to Atlantic City).

Labels: commercial litigation electronic data electronic discovery New York small business

2/18/2009
Jonathan Cooper
Comments (0)

Half-Truths, Selective Memories and White Lies - Grist for Collateral Attack at Trial

Just one week ago, I opined that Alex Rodriguez did the right thing by publicly admitting - albeit belatedly - about his use of performance enhancing drugs back in 2003, and likened it to Michael Phelps's decision to admit his wrongdoing in smoking a certain illicit substance at a party.

Well, it appears that I may have been a bit too quick out of the gate on that one, because as it turns out, A-Rod has failed rather miserably to fully explain his actions. To the contrary, he compounded his public relations image problems at a news conference earlier today by denying that he knew he was taking steroids (which strains credulity to say the least, given that they were apparently the absolute top-of-the-line performace enhancing drugs at the time), and blaming his poor choice to take the banned substances on youth and naivete, when it has already been well-documented that at the time he took the 'roids, he was already a veteran star player and a multimillionaire.

In my view, A-Rod's half-truths and white lies were and are so transparent that his prepared statement at today's press conference has been rightly criticized and mocked. The moral of the story is this: if you're gonna come clean, then go all the way; otherwise, just keep your mouth shut and say nothing. Going half-way with the truth is rarely a viable option, because it leaves you stuck straddling a proverbial barbed-wire fence of lies (i.e., you will be caught in your lies and no one will believe you) - and that will hurt far worse than if you just went over the fence and got a little cut up, or never tried to scale the fence at all.

Labels: trial truth

2/15/2009
Jonathan Cooper
Comments (0)

Protecting Your Small Business From a Manufacturer's Breach of Contract

As noted in the News and Small Business sections of our site, a small construction materials supplier by the name of Screws and More has decided to go after one of the nation's largest construction materials manufacturers, Powers Fasteners, claiming that some of the parts Powers provided did not meet specs, and cost Screws a large line of business. Although the contracts between the manufacturers and suppliers are often slated in the manufacturers' favor, and expressly limit the manufacturers' liability, there are certain elementary steps that a small commercial supplier should take to assure that it does not lose any important jobs due to the failure of its manufacturer's products. To read more on this topic, click here.

Labels: commercial business defective products manufacturer small business

2/15/2009
Jonathan Cooper
Comments (0)

Suppliers' Names Deemed Privileged as Trade Secret

Last week, a California appellate court which sided with Costco in its bid to prevent disclosing the names of its clothing suppliers on the grounds that this information was deserving of judicial protection as a trade secret. As we have previously noted, it is incumbent on the party asserting that certain information, such as a supplier's identity, be protected from disclosure in in a commercial, small business litigation as privileged matter or a trade secret, to demonstrate that this information was not readily obtainable from another public source, as well as what concrete steps and expense the business took to develop and protect this proprietary list. Otherwise, under New York law, the Court is obliged to compel the disclosure of the list.

Consequently, I was hoping that the California appellate court would elaborate on what specific steps Costco took to convince the Court that their clothing suppliers' identities were privileged matter worthy of protection from disclosure as a trade secret, if only to provide a measure of comparison to New York law. Unfortunately, after reading the opinion, the Court clearly glossed over this topic, stating in cursory fashion that Costco produced some evidence that its list of suppliers had monetary value, and that it made significant strides to make sure that the names and addresses of its suppliers did not become public.

Labels: commercial litigation litigation New York small business trade secret

2/11/2009
Jonathan Cooper
Comments (0)

Diminishing Jury Verdicts and the Economic Recession: Do They Go Hand in Hand?

Last month, Bloomberg's research confirmed that which those of us who been selecting juries or trying cases have known for some time: there has been a clear downward trend in the top jury verdicts over the last several years. My colleagues at Carroll & Carroll have also noted that the top jury awards nationwide from 2007 were nearly 75% lower than the top verdicts from two years earlier, in 2005.

Why am I writing about this, you ask? Because it is important for anyone who retains an attorney, whether for a personal injury matter, a defective product lawsuit, or even for a small business or commercial litigation matter to understand that the courts have disallowed exorbitant jury awards, particularly in the aftermath of the United States Supreme Court's decision which held that punitive damages must, as a general rule, be capped.

The second, and perhaps more important, thing that the prospective client to assimilate is that juries have grown increasingly conservative, especially as the economy has soured. Although it could easily be argued that the two are wholly separate and distinct, and the product of a multitude of factors, I think that two are certainly inter-related, and intimately. And I think the following illustration clarifies this link: how can you expect a juror who has just lost his job, and will need to return to the unemployment line immediately after completing his jury service, to empathize with your claim that you only made $1.5 million in profits last year instead of the $3 million you would have earned had your unfaithful and disloyal employee not stolen or embezzled your proprietary information and trade secrets? You can't.

Labels: award commercial litigation defective product economy embezzlement jury litigation personal injury recession small business theft trade secret verdict

2/10/2009
Jonathan Cooper
Comments (0)

Saving Small Business Clients Money - the Lawyer's Secret to Success

In an article that appears in today's New York Times, a few prominent venture capitalists are quoted as saying that in the midst of this economic recession, the best way to entice investment in a start-up or small business is by demonstrating how the company's mission is specifically geared to save their clients money; decreased revenue across the economic spectrum have mandated that it is no longer enough to put out a great product.

And how does a small business go about showing that? Some recommendations, culled from the hi-tech sector, include using renewable materials, or promoting new web-based applications that are designed to seamlessly integrate different software applications, thereby increasing productivity.

This rule applies to the law business as well. In order to effectively market a law practice to small businesses, attorneys should be able to demonstrate, in concrete terms, to prospective clients how their firm streamlines the legal process to assure peak efficiency, particularly, but not limited to the context of litigation. One way this can be done is by filing cases electronically; another is by storing documents electronically for easy reference and retrieval; a third way is communicating with clients, adversaries and experts via e-mail, which not only reduces significantly postage costs that would otherwise be incurred, but also eliminates the time lag caused by the back-and-forth of snail-mail.

Labels: economic recession efficiency electronic filing New York reducing costs small business start-up

Blog

News

Library

Case Results

FAQs

General

Videos

Testimonials