Skip to main content

Litigation

Navigating the Road to Recovery: How Our Law Firm Supports Personal Injury Victims

Suffering a personal injury can be a life-altering experience, leaving victims grappling with physical, emotional, and financial challenges. In times of distress, having a reliable legal partner can make all the difference. Our law firm is committed to helping personal injury victims find the support and justice they deserve. In this blog post, we'll outline key considerations for those who have experienced a personal injury and how our dedicated team can provide assistance.

Understanding Your Rights: Personal injury victims often face uncertainties about their rights and legal options. Our law firm is here to guide you through the process, ensuring you have a clear understanding of your rights and the potential avenues for seeking compensation.

Comprehensive Legal Support: From gathering evidence to negotiating with insurance companies, our legal team provides comprehensive support at every stage. We understand the complexities of personal injury cases and work diligently to build a strong case on your behalf.

Navigating the Claims Process: The claims process can be daunting, especially for those dealing with injuries. Our experienced attorneys streamline the process, handling paperwork, communication with insurers, and legal complexities, allowing you to focus on your recovery.

Maximizing Compensation: Our goal is to help you secure the maximum compensation possible. We assess the full extent of your damages, including medical expenses, lost wages, and pain and suffering, to build a compelling case that reflects the true impact of the injury on your life.

No Win, No Fee: We understand the financial strain personal injuries can impose. That's why our law firm operates on a contingency fee basis – you only pay if we win your case. This ensures access to quality legal representation without adding to the financial burden during an already challenging time.

Compassionate Advocacy: Beyond legal expertise, we provide compassionate advocacy. We recognize the emotional toll of personal injuries and strive to offer empathetic support to our clients throughout the legal process.

If you've been a victim of a personal injury, know that you don't have to navigate the recovery journey alone. Our law firm is dedicated to standing by your side, providing expert legal guidance, and fighting for the justice and compensation you deserve. Reach out to us today for a consultation and let us help you take the first steps towards healing and recovery.

Negligence: School District Was Not Negligent In Its Operation Of School Bus

The  Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department , recently held that a school district was not negligent in its operation of a school bus, as would support a negligence claim brought by a student’s parents, in an action seeking to recover damages for personal injuries the student sustained when he stood up from his seat while the school bus was decelerating and his face struck the back of the seat in front of him.  The incident occurred on the plaintiff’s ride on school bus home following his first day of kindergarten at his elementary school.  As the bus was decelerating, the plaintiff stood up from his seat and his face struck the back of the seat in front of him, causing the avulsion of one of his permanent front teeth.  The incident was captured on a video recording-which contained both speed and time data-taken from a camera located at the front of the bus.  The bus, including its braking system, was functioning properly at the time of the incident. The bus driver was qualified, experienced, and properly trained to operate a school bus.  The bus was traveling within the speed limit, did not decelerate in an improper manner, and was otherwise operated in accordance with the applicable policies and procedure. Read the Court’s  Opinion .

New Commercial Division Monetary Thresholds Effective September 2, 2014

The Administrative Board of the Courts has announced their decision to amend Section 202.70 (a) of the Uniform Civil Rules of the New York State Supreme and County Courts with respect to monetary thresholds for the Commercial Division.   The monetary thresholds of the Commercial Division are exclusive of punitive damages, interests, costs, disbursements and attorneys’ fees claimed.   The changes are as follows:

Albany County $  25,800 $  50,000
Eighth Judicial District $  50,000 $ 100,000
Kings County $  75,000 $ 150,000
Nassau County $ 100,000 $ 200,000
New York County $ 500,000
Onondaga County $   25,000 $   50,000
Queens County $   50,000 $ 100,000
Seventh Judicial District $   50,000
Suffolk County $  50,000 $ 100,000
Westchester County $  100,000

Erik M. Bashian is the former vice chair of the Commercial Litigation Committee of the Nassau County Bar Association.  His practice focuses on civil litigation related to commercial disputes in the New York state court system.  These areas of practice include claims related to: breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duties, fraud, real estate litigation, monies owed for services and goods sold and construction disputes.

New FINRA Rule Imposes New Obligations On Broker/Dealers – Self-Reporting Misconduct

Starting July 1, 2011, broker/dealers will be facing new reporting requirements of wrongdoings under  FINRA Rule 4530 .   The new rule will be expanding on a broker/dealers ongoing obligation to report external findings such as litigation and regulatory actions pursuant to NASD Rule 3070.   Specifically, the new Rule will require under Section 4530(b) that broker/dealer firms are to report within 30 days after the firm has concluded that an associated person, or the firm itself, has violated any financial law, rule, regulation, or standard of conduct established by a regulatory body.  This new requirement is a major overhaul to the disciplinary approach and procedures that are currently used to monitor broker/dealer firms.  The Rule also places both an immediate and long-term administrative burden on borker/dealer firms in that they will need to design new systems to conform with the new documentation requirements.  It will be interesting to see what, if any, effect this may have on the regulation of broker-dealers in the future.   Erik M. Bashian , a New York trial attorney and partner of  Bashian & Papantoniou , is a former legal enforcement intern with the  NASD .

New Voting Laws Could Leave More than 5 Million Americans Away from the Polls Next Year

Republican state legislators and governors in a number of states have passed various laws this year that stand to have a large impact on voters in 2012. According to a study released this past Sunday by the  Brennan Center for Justice at New York University , some of these recently passed laws will make it overwhelmingly difficult for voters, mostly Democrat ones, to cast ballots come election time in 2012.

Some of the new laws passed will: require photo identification for voting, eliminate same day voter registration in several states, require proof of citizenship to register to vote, change the requirements for voter registration drives and reduce early voting days. The report notes that these laws “could make it significantly harder for more than five million eligible voters to cast ballots in 2012.”

While Republicans claim the new laws are intended to prevent voter fraud, most Democrats aren’t buying it. They say it is a tool to dissuade the younger generations, minorities and low-income voters who vote in large part for the Democratic Party.  The Brennan Center’s report highlights the fact that minority groups in the U.S. will for the most part be negatively impacted. For example, according to the Brennan Center, African-Americans and Hispanics are the most likely to register to vote during voter registration drives in Florida. Those that have now been outlawed in that state the Sunday before Election Day (a well known day on which numerous African-American churches plan organized drives for the members of their congregation). Likewise, the new laws passed in Maine will no longer allow people to register to vote on Election Day, a practice that in 2008 was credited with enrolling nearly 60,000 new voters. In Texas, student identification cards will not be an acceptable form of photo identification now required. According to calculations performed by the Brennan Center, 11 percent of potential voters currently do not possess state-issued photo identification. Thus, this new relevant law alone would affect 3.2 million voters in those states where the change is scheduled to take effect before the 2012 elections.

New York Court of Appeals Upholds Lower Court Decision on Ban of Sugary Sodas in Garden City

It was to be March 12, 2013; a man walks into a Manhattan 711 on the outskirts of Madison Square Park and orders a Big Gulp.  The cashier informs the man, “I am sorry, but we are no longer able to sell sodas over 16 ounces.”  The man walks out of the store dejected and questioning the ban imposed by former Mayor Bloomberg upon all Garden City residents as being “unconstitutional.”  Fast forward to June 26, 2014, where the New York Court of Appeals in a 4-2 decision written by the Justice Eugence F. Pigott, who held that “the Garden City Board of Health, in adopting the ‘Sugary Drinks Portion Cap Rule’, exceeded the scope of its regulatory authority.”  Here, the Court reasoned that “instead of an outright ban on sugary beverages, the Board decided to reduce their consumption by the expedient of limiting maximum container size, thus making it less convenient for consumers to exceed recommended limits. The more cautious approach, however, does not save the Portion Cap Rule. By restricting portions, the Board necessarily chose between ends, including public health, the economic consequences associated with restricting profits by beverage companies and vendors, tax implications for small business owners, and personal autonomy with respect to the choices of Garden City residents concerning what they consume.”   In the dissent, Justice Susan Read ruled that “the majority misapprehends, mischaracterizes and thereby curtails the powers of the Garden City Board of Health to address the public health threats of the early 21st century.”  What are your thoughts on the ban?  Do you think that government should limit an individual’s right to consumption?

https://www.nycourts.gov/ctapps/Decisions/2014/Jun14/134opn14-Decision.pdf

New York Laws to Fight Employment Harassment

The New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL) requires all employers in New York State, regardless of size or type of business, to provide a workplace free from sexual harassment. Even individuals not considered “employees,” such as independent contractors, subcontractors, vendors, consultants, or anyone providing services in the workplace are also protected from harassment at work locations. Examples of protected contractors include those providing equipment repair, cleaning services, or any other services provided under a contract with the employer.

New York Minimum Wage & Changes for 2023

New York Minimum Wage – Changes for 2023

In 2016, Governor Andrew Cuomo signed a law providing for annual increases to the state’s minimum wage. While this is certainly a win for New York’s lowest-paid workers, the increases take effect at different times and in different amounts depending on factors like where the business is located and the nature of the employee’s work. Here is what is new for 2023:

  • The state-wide basic minimum wage for non-tipped workers is now $14.20 per hour (up from $13.20 last year). In Garden City and the downstate counties (Westchester, Nassau, and Suffolk), the minimum wage remains $15.00 for non-tipped employees.
  • For tipped service employees outside of Garden City and the downstate counties, the minimum wage is now $11.85 per hour (up from $11.00 last year), and the maximum tip credit an employer may claim is $2.35 per hour. In Garden City and the downstate counties, the minimum wage for such employees remains $12.50 per hour with a maximum tip credit of $2.50 per hour.
  • For tipped food service employees outside of Garden City and the downstate counties, the minimum wage is now $9.45 per hour (up from $8.80) and the maximum tip credit is $4.75 per hour. In Garden City and the downstate counties, the minimum wage for this class of employees remains $10.00 per hour with a maximum tip credit of $5.00 per hour.

At Bashian & Papantoniou, we stay up-to-date on all of the changes to the law that affect workers’ rights, so we can fight to make sure those right are not violated. If your employer has not kept up with the legally-required minimum wage increases, or you are experiencing any other issue in the workplace, call us today for a free consultation.

NJ Court: Employer That Restricts An Employee From Grieving In The Workplace Is Not Actionable Conduct

New Jersey mother Cecelia Ingraham, who openly grieved the death of her beloved daughter in the workplace, has lost her appeal against former employer Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceutical, in Raritan, New Jersey, where she had previously worked as an administrative assistant in the marketing department for over 12 years. Ms. Ingraham brought suit against her employer after she was told to remove her deceased daughter’s ballet slippers and picture from her cubicle and to pretend that her daughter “did not exist.” Ingraham’s teenage daughter died of incurable infection related to lymphocytic leukemia. Ingraham’s open and repeated grieving in the workplace made co-workers uncomfortable. The employer claimed that Ingraham’s pictures and grieving behavior constituted a workplace “disruption” and that the daughter should no longer be discussed “because she is dead.”

Ingraham brought suit against her former employer under the legal theories of intentional infliction of emotional distress, constructive discharge and violations of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination. In order to prevail in a lawsuit for intentional infliction of emotional distress, the plaintiff typically must show the following: (1) the defendant intended to inflict emotional distress; (2) the conduct of the defendant was extreme and outrageous; (3) the actions of the defendant were the cause of the plaintiff’s distress; and (4) the resulting emotional distress to the plaintiff was severe. The Superior Court of New Jersey rejected Ingraham’s claims by finding that although the employer’s words may have inflicted emotional distress upon Ingraham, Ingraham failed to show that defendants intended to cause her distress and acted extremely, and outrageously in their actions of preventing Ingraham from grieving in the workplace. Justice Victor Ashrafi reasoned that “the workplace has too many personal conflicts and too much behavior that might be perceived as uncivil for the courts to be used as the umpire for all but the most extreme workplace disputes.” If you or a loved one is dealing with emotional distress in the workplace, please feel free to contact the employment attorneys of Bashian & Papantoniou, P.C. 

Our Promise to You...

Having the ability to provide clients with an opportunity to manage their legal situations and take away the stress from the client is a service that we take great pride in. Here, at Bashian & Papantoniou, each and every client that walks through our doors (no matter how big or small) receives the same attention and care. We are a New York and New Jersey boutique law firm with offices located in the heart of Garden City, Long Island. Our areas of legal expertise and services stretch from the tip of Montauk to New Jersey and the entire Garden City metro area. Please give us a call if you have a matter that requires legal assistance. Have a happy and healthy New Year.

Plea of Guilty Entered in $135 Million Medical Equipment Fraud Scheme

Bruce Donner, owner of Donner Medical Marketing, Inc., recently pled guilty to his role in a $135 million phony lease scheme.  The case, U.S. v. Bruce Donner, was heard in U.S. District Court in New Jersey before Judge Susan Wigenton.

According to prosecutors, Donner provided false medical equipment invoices to Charles Schwartz, the owner of Allied Health Care Services, Inc.  The invoices stated that Donner was providing various medical equipment to Allied when, in reality, no such equipment existed.  Schwartz then used the fake invoices to convince banks to enter into leasing agreements in which the banks would buy the equipment and then lease it to Schwartz. The bank payments were sent to Donner, who forwarded most of the money to a dummy corporation set up by Schwartz.  Donner kept a portion of the money, over $4.1 million, for himself as “commissions”. 

Overall, over fifty banks were defrauded, causing losses of more than $80 million. By pleading guilty to mail fraud, Donner faces up to 20 years in prison, as well as a fine of $250,000 or double the gross loss resulting from his offense.

The entire text of the article can be found  here .

Reasonable Accommodations and Retaliation at Work

The Freckleton v. Mercy College NY case highlights the importance of reasonable accommodations and retaliation protections for individuals with disabilities. The case involves a nursing student who alleged racial discrimination, retaliation, and failure to accommodate a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

The plaintiff submitted a letter to the college regarding her anxiety and requested accommodations. The college requested additional information but ultimately denied her request and terminated her enrollment. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit, and the court granted the motion to dismiss for failure to accommodate and discrimination claims but denied it for ADA retaliation.

The court held that a delay in providing a reasonable accommodation can be considered a constructive denial, and courts have found delays of approximately four months to be unreasonable. However, in this case, the plaintiff failed to allege that the college denied her accommodation request, only that they requested additional information.

Regarding disability discrimination, the court found that the plaintiff failed to provide any evidence of discriminatory comments or actions and did not identify others who were treated differently by the college.

However, the plaintiff's retaliation claim survived the motion to dismiss. She showed that she engaged in a protected activity by requesting a reasonable accommodation, the college was aware of this activity, they took adverse action against her by terminating her enrollment, and there was a causal connection based on temporal proximity.

This case highlights the importance of timely and reasonable accommodations for individuals with disabilities and the protections against retaliation for requesting such accommodations. Employers and educational institutions must take proactive measures to provide accommodations and avoid discriminatory actions.

In conclusion, the Freckleton v. Mercy College NY case serves as a reminder that ADA protections must be taken seriously, and failure to comply can lead to legal consequences. It is crucial to provide reasonable accommodations and to avoid retaliation against individuals who request them.

Reasonable accommodations under the FHA and ADA

In a recent EDNY case, a plaintiff with mobility issues brought several claims against their apartment building under the ADA and FHA. The plaintiff alleged that the building had failed to make reasonable accommodations for their disability, had subjected them to a hostile housing environment, and had retaliated against them for engaging in protected activity under the FHA. However, the court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss all claims. The court found that the plaintiff had failed to allege that they had requested reasonable accommodations before filing their lawsuit, which was required to establish a claim under the FHA. The court also found that the plaintiff had failed to allege sufficiently severe and pervasive harassment to establish a claim for hostile housing environment under the FHA. Additionally, the court noted that a residential facility is not a public accommodation under the ADA, and that the plaintiff had failed to allege a concrete adverse action to establish a claim for retaliation under the FHA.

In conclusion, the case of Levy v. Lawrence Gardens Apartments Del, LLC, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53346 (EDNY 2023) highlights the importance of understanding the requirements and limitations of the Fair Housing Act (FHA) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in the context of discrimination claims related to housing. The ruling clarifies the necessary elements for claims of failure to make reasonable accommodations, hostile housing environment, and retaliation under the FHA, as well as the limited applicability of the ADA to residential facilities. Ultimately, the decision emphasizes the importance of carefully pleading and presenting evidence to meet the legal standards necessary to establish a violation of the FHA or ADA in housing discrimination cases.

Sanctions Upheld Against Attorney Alleging 9/11 Conspiracy

The  Second Circuit Court of Appeals  unanimously upheld sanctions against one attorney who called for the judges hearing their appeal to recuse themselves. The attorneys, representing a 9/11 victim, sued members of the Bush administration, arguing that a bomb explosion, and not an aircraft impact, caused damage to the Pentagon on September 11, 2011, injuring the plaintiff. Judge Denny Chin, of the Southern District of New York, dismissed the plaintiff’s case, characterizing the complaint as “cynical delusion and fantasy.”

The plaintiff’s attorneys appealed to the Second Circuit, which upheld the dismissal. The attorneys subsequently filed a motion requesting that the appellate judges who upheld the dismissal recuse themselves, arguing that the judges had a “severe bias” against them and were motived by personal emotions, precluded them from ruling reasonably.

That same panel of judges ruled that the attorneys “acted in bad faith in demanding the recusal of the three panel members and any like-minded colleagues” and ordered sanctions of $15,000, in addition to double what the government spent to defend the claims, against one of the attorneys. The attorney has 30 days to comply with the court’s order.

SEC Lawsuit Against JPMorgan Results in $153.6 Million Settlement

One of the most significant legal actions involving Wall Street’s role in the 2008 financial crisis recently ended in settlement.   JPMorgan Chase & Co.   has agreed to pay $153.6 million to settle civil fraud charges brought against it by the  SEC . The SEC lawsuit charged JP Morgan with misleading investors into purchasing complex mortgage securities immediately prior to the collapse of the housing market.  

The case revolves around the need for the sellers of securities to sufficiently disclose all relevant information to potential purchasers. JPMorgan failed to inform investors that the mortgage securities were part of an investment portfolio that a hedge fund helped construct.  More significantly, investors were never told that the same Hedge Fund was betting that the portfolio would fail.  Following the resolution of the lawsuit, SEC Enforcement Chief  Robert Khuzami  stated “the appropriate disclosures would have been to inform investors that an entity with economic interests adverse to their own was involved in selecting the portfolio.”

JPMorgan itself has produced statements showing that it lost $900 million on the investment.  Incidentally, just two weeks earlier, JPMorgan CEO  Jamie Dimon  complained to Federal Reserve Chairman  Ben Bernanke  that new financial regulations put in place following the financial crisis placed too high a burden on banks. 

The investors who were harmed, mostly large financial institutions, will be reimbursed for all of their losses as part of the settlement.  The remaining portion of the settlement, consisting of approximately $30 million, will go to the U.S. Treasury. In addition, JPMorgan, while neither admitting nor denying wrongdoing, agreed to improve its procedures for reviewing and approving mortgage securities transactions.  Just a year earlier, similar charges were brought against Goldman Sachs & Co., resulting in a $550 million settlement, the largest penalty against a Wall Street firm in SEC history. 

Securing a $2.7 Million Award: Bashian & Papantoniou Delivers Justice for its Client

Bashian & Papantoniou, P.C. is pleased to announce a significant and well deserved victory for our client, S. J. Stile Associates, Ltd., in Nassau County Commercial Division (Index No. 618818/2024).

After a inquest on damages, the Court awarded our client $2,706,577.18 - underscoring our firm’s unwavering commitment to holding faithless employees fully accountable for their actions of theft and fraud.

The $2.7 million award consists of three parts:

  1. $1,818,668.39 in direct damages, including punitive relief and the disgorgement of funds misappropriated through unauthorized ACH transfers, forged checks and personal charges on company credit cards
  2. $887,908.79 in pre-judgment interest, calculated at 9 % from December 12, 2019 through entry of judgment
  3. All taxable costs and disbursements, with reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses to be determined and added shortly

“This result won’t undo the harm,” said Erik M. Bashian, Managing Litigation Partner of Bashian & Papantoniou, “but it demonstrates our resolve: when someone betrays your trust and steals from your business, we will pursue every remedy to hold them accountable.”

Whether you’re confronting a commercial dispute, allegations of fraud or claims of conversion, Bashian & Papantoniou combines strategic insight with relentless advocacy to achieve the results your business deserves. Don’t accept less than full justice—contact us today and let us fight for you.

Bashian & Papantoniou, P.C is a Garden City law firm that provides high-end legal services with over 40 years of combined experience as business litigators. We specialize in business litigation, employment litigation and corporate transactions.  Every client receives personalized, cost-effective solutions and the relentless advocacy needed to achieve maximum results

The Decision: Click Here

Garden City, NY – May 28, 2025

This post is for advertising purposes only. Past results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

Settlement Of Lawsuit Provides DISH And Echostar Rights To Use Tivo Patents For Video Recording

Dish Network Corp  and partner EchoStar Corp agreed to settle its ongoing litigation with  TiVo  for $500 million, which includes an immediate payment of $300 million, pursuant to a settlement agreement that dismisses the ongoing litigation between the parties.   The settlement agreement provides DISH with the rights to use certain TiVo patents for video recording on its satellite television system.   The settlement has dramatically increased the value of DISH stock, which has propelled to its highest value since 2008.  Dish Chief Executive Officer  Charlie Ergen  provided in a publically released statement that “we are pleased to put this litigation behind us and move forward…our agreement with TiVo provides us a competitive advantage as one of the few multichannel operators with rights to operate under TiVo’s Time Warp patent, which ultimately will allow us to enhance the performance” of the company’s digital video recorders.   The attorneys of  Bashian & Papantoniou  are  New York trial lawyers  that can assist you in the settlement of  business disputes .  Please contact one of our  New York trial lawyers  for an immediate consultation.  Read More

State Auditors Save NY Taxpayers Millions Each Month in Medicaid Costs

Two New York state auditors in the  Medicaid Inspector General’s Office  decided to go back to the basics in their search for fraudulent activity. Beneath the complex schemes often investigated, lay the much simpler ones, in this case, patients’ addresses. The discovery revealed that managed care organizations were improperly billing the government health program; doing so based on where the patient was receiving the care instead of where they actually lived. As a result, some health care providers were getting more funds than the program allowed for.

To account for differences such as cost of living, allotments for Medicaid payments vary rather drastically from county to county.  Although most health care providers are located in counties zoned to receive high reimbursements, they are only to receive the payments calculated based on the counties in which their patients reside. Thus, for example, health care providers located in upscale neighborhoods in Manhattan servicing patients residing in rural upstate towns, are still supposed to receive reimbursement payments scaled to the addresses on file of their patients however, they are receiving much more by filing their own address with the government program.

Governor Andrew Cuomo announced that the error was costing New York taxpayers an additional $8 million each month in Medicaid costs. State officials are noting the “error” as just that, not intentional fraud; all the same, taxpayers and the state combined are now saving millions without a single cutback or compromise in care.

Strategies for Defending Against a Breach of Contract Lawsuit: A Comprehensive Guide

In the complex landscape of business transactions, contracts serve as the backbone of legal agreements. However, disputes can arise, leading to the filing of breach of contract lawsuits. For businesses facing such legal challenges, understanding effective defense strategies is crucial. In this blog post, we will explore key considerations and strategies to mount a strong defense against a breach of contract lawsuit.

  1. Thorough Contract Review: Before crafting your defense, conduct a meticulous review of the contract in question. Identify and understand the specific terms, obligations, and conditions outlined in the agreement. A comprehensive understanding of the contract forms the basis for a solid defense.

  2. Proving Lack of Breach: One of the primary defenses against a breach of contract claim is demonstrating that no actual breach occurred. This involves establishing that your actions were in compliance with the terms and conditions stipulated in the contract. Collect evidence, such as correspondence, invoices, and performance records, to support your case.

  3. Challenging Contract Validity: If there are doubts about the validity of the contract itself, it can be a powerful defense strategy. This may involve proving that the contract lacks essential elements, such as mutual assent, consideration, or legal capacity. Engage legal experts to assess the contract's enforceability.

  4. Asserting Affirmative Defenses: Explore affirmative defenses that may be applicable to your situation. Common affirmative defenses include duress, fraud, mistake, impossibility of performance, and frustration of purpose. Each of these defenses requires a detailed examination of the circumstances surrounding the alleged breach.

  5. Performance Excuses: Certain situations may excuse performance under a contract. Force majeure clauses, for example, can be invoked if unforeseen circumstances beyond your control hindered your ability to fulfill contractual obligations. Highlighting these factors can strengthen your defense.

  6. Mitigation of Damages: Demonstrate that you took reasonable steps to mitigate any damages suffered by the other party. This can include showing that you made efforts to find alternative solutions or fulfill contractual obligations through other means.

  7. Counterclaims and Setoffs: Evaluate the possibility of filing counterclaims against the plaintiff. If you have legitimate grievances arising from the same contract, presenting counterclaims can shift the balance in your favor. Setoffs, where you reduce the amount owed based on the other party's breaches, are also worth exploring.

  8. Negotiation and Settlement: Consider exploring negotiation and settlement options. Resolving the dispute amicably through negotiation or alternative dispute resolution mechanisms can save time, resources, and protect your business reputation.

Conclusion: Facing a breach of contract lawsuit can be challenging, but a well-prepared defense strategy is key to protecting your interests. By thoroughly reviewing the contract, presenting evidence of compliance, and strategically applying legal defenses, businesses can navigate these legal challenges with confidence. Engaging experienced legal counsel is essential to ensure a comprehensive and effective defense strategy.

Summary Judgment Motion Granted Despite The Fact More Discovery Was Needed| Bashian & Papantoniou

A medical malpractice lawsuit filed by a patient against Long Island Jewish Medical Center-Schneider Children’s Hospital was dismissed, when the Court ruled that the “mere hope of [a] patient, that depositions might uncover existence of evidence necessary to defeat summary judgment …was insufficient to delay summary judgment determination, where expert’s affidavit demonstrated that defendants did not depart from good and accepted medical practice and treatment was not proximate cause of alleged injuries…”   Indeed the Court reasoned that the patient did not make any showing of the existence of facts necessary to oppose summary judgment that were exclusively within defendants’ knowledge and as a result would not exercise the drastic remedy of striking the defendant’s answer absent a clear showing that its failure to comply with discovery demands was willful or contumacious.