Adam C. Calvert

Successfully defended a Labor Law 240(1) case where the demand was reduced from $750,000 to a settlement of $150,000. The plaintiff was a roofer who fell after improperly using his retractable harness.  The plaintiff suffered debilitating back injuries requiring several surgeries. 

Successfully settled a case for a nuisance value where the plaintiff's demand was over $500,000.  The plaintiff alleged that our client negligently built a handicapped ramp.  Neither the plaintiff nor the other codefendants realized that the ramp that the plaintiff fell over had been rebuilt since Adam's client had built the original ramp.  Adam was the only attorney to realize this fact after careful inspection of the ramp with his expert.  When this fact was revealed at mediation, the plaintiff and codefendants were left without any claim against Adam's client, and he was able to obtain an easy settlement. 

Obtained a summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff's case against an out-of-possession owner of a building where the plaintiff was injured on an elevator.

Obtained a summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff's labor law claims where a pry bar broke, causing a wall to fall on the plaintiff.

Obtained a summary judgment and indemnity from a subcontractor on behalf of a construction management company in a case where the plaintiff's settlement demand was over $2,000,000.

Obtained summary judgment in the New York State Supreme Court, Kings County. Adam represented a maintenance company that provided management of the janitorial services for the codefendant hospital. The plaintiff was a patient in the hospital who slipped and fell on water outside of her room. Adam was able to have the plaintiff's direct claims dismissed because a contractor does not owe a duty to the plaintiff under the New York Court of Appeals case Espinal v. Melville Snow Contractors. He was also able to have the hospital's cross-claims for contribution and indemnity dismissed because he was able to show that the hospital also had some involvement with maintenance and janitorial services at the hospital.

Obtained summary judgment in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York.  Adam represented a grocery store.  The plaintiff testified that she slipped and fell on smashed and dirty vegetables in the frozen food aisle.  She also testified that there were cart tracks near the vegetables.  She argued that this description of the vegetables and cart tracks was sufficient to show constructive notice to the store.  At the beginning of oral argument, the judge commented that he viewed it as a “very close” case.  Adam was ultimately able to convince the court to dismiss the case by arguing that the plaintiff’s description of the vegetables was just as consistent with the plaintiff slipping on the vegetables or someone creating the defect just before the plaintiff’s accident.  Therefore, the court concluded that the plaintiff’s constructive notice argument was speculative and dismissed the case.

Successfully settled wrongful death and survival claims for millions less than value suggested by the mediator.  Adam's client allegedly caused a fire at the decedent's home, causing the decedent to suffer severe burns and a three-month hospital stay before she passed away.  Adam performed a site inspection with a cause and origin expert a few days after the fire, coordinated with investigators in obtaining statements from eyewitnesses and the local fire departments, and participated in a mediation that ultimately settled the case.  

Adam obtained summary judgment in New York State Supreme Court, Bronx County on behalf of the owner of high-rise residential building that was undergoing a construction project.  The plaintiff worked for a company that would clean each apartment after construction was completed in that particular unit.  The plaintiff was injured and required multiple surgeries after falling from a kitchen counter while cleaning the top of a cabinet.  The main issue in the case was whether the plaintiff’s work qualified for protection under Labor Law 240(1), which imposes absolute liability upon the owner of a construction projects for workers who fall from height.    Based upon a recent Court of Appeals case, Soto v. J. Crew, Inc., 21 N.Y.3d 562 (2013), whether plaintiff was protected rested on 4 factors: (1) whether the work is routine, in that it is done on a recurring basis as part of the ordinary maintenance of the premises; (2) requires neither specialized equipment or expertise; (3) generally involves insignificant elevation risks comparable to those in typical household cleaning; and (4) in light of the core purpose of Labor Law 240(1), to protect construction workers, is unrelated to any ongoing construction project.  There are very few post-Soto decisions.  However, Adam was successful in convincing the court that plaintiff did not qualify for protection of the statute.  The court felt that factors 2 & 3 clearly weighed in favor of the defense and also found relevant plaintiff’s deposition testimony that she performed similar cleaning work in her own home.  In distinguishing the 4^th  and final factor, the court  noted that although cleaning was related to the building’s construction, it was a separate phase of the project.  

Obtained summary judgment in the New York State Supreme Court, Richmond County on behalf of an amusement park.  The plaintiff claimed that he was injured on a water slide because of an improperly inflated inner-tube. The court found the defendant did not have notice of any alleged inflation issue   based upon plaintiff’s own testimony that he held the tube for 15-20 minutes before the accident without noticing a problem.  The court was further influenced by the fact  that numerous safety checks were performed by the park and that plaintiff could not establish a specific defect with the tube or how the tube’s inflation caused his accident. The court also found that plaintiff’s claims were barred by assumption of the risk,  particularly given the plaintiff’s age (in his 40s) and past experience with water rides.  

Adam obtained the first summary judgment decision in New York for a prominent rideshare company. He successfully argued that the rideshare company could not be liable to the plaintiff because it did not own the vehicle in question. This was done at the early stages of litigation to save the client significant time and expense.

Adam obtained several dismissals for out-of-state clients based on lack of personal jurisdiction. These dismissals were based on recent Supreme Court and Court of Appeals decisions that altered personal jurisdiction in New York.  By staying up to date on these recent cases, Adam was able to win dismissal for his clients.