We focus our practice on the defense of corporate and professional clients, as well as insurers in high exposure and complex litigation matters. We cater to Fortune 500 companies, religious and health care institutions, as well as closely owned family businesses. Our professional clients include medical professionals, attorneys, insurance agents and brokers and officers and directors. The cases we handle usually involve significant personal injury, employment discrimination and civil rights claims, and medical malpractice and related healthcare litigation. We also provide counseling and representation to the insurance industry, and licensing and disciplinary representation to the professions.
CG&P Partners Dom Gallardo and Michele Levin successfully defended a New York City nursing home in New York County Supreme Court during a 4-week trial involving nearly ten thousand pages of bates stamped medical records and the testimony of eleven witnesses. The case involved complex Nursing Home statutory violations with an underpinning of allegations that the decedent nursing home resident was over medicated with a powerful antipsychotic resulting in falls, extrapyramidal symptoms, and death. The decedent resident’s treating physician and psychiatrist, who were sued in medical malpractice, settled with the plaintiff immediately before jury selection. CG&P continued the defense of the nursing home to verdict.
The Appellate Division for the Second Judicial Department has affirmed the dismissal of a legal malpractice action against CG&P’s client. The Court agreed with CG&P’s argument that the claim against the attorney and his firm was barred by the statute of limitations, and that the plaintiff’s claims of continuous representation were insufficient to overcome the statute.
In an action for podiatric malpractice and lack of informed consent, it was alleged that CG&P’s client was negligent in treating a keratotic lesion on the plaintiff’s hammertoe with a debridement. It was alleged that the treatment resulted in osteomyelitis which was allowed to progress, resulting in the need for a distal amputation of the plaintiff’s toe.