Paul W. Lanza

Obtained summary judgment on behalf of our client. The plaintiff was injured when she fell from a 25-foot rock-climbing wall at our client's facility.  After reaching the summit of the wall, plaintiff, a certified climber, pushed off to begin repelling down, only to realize that she forgot to connect to the auto-belay system.  She proceeded to fall to the ground and fractured both ankles for which she underwent open reduction internal fixation surgery.  Plaintiff had previously visited the client's facility approximately 35 times and had executed a liability waiver on each occasion, including the date of the accident.  We moved for summary judgment to dismiss plaintiff's Complaint based on the fact that the liability waiver was enforceable.  Plaintiff argued that the liability waiver was only enforceable as to her claims of ordinary negligence and that the issue of whether the defendant was grossly negligent was a triable issue of fact.  However, we successfully argued that no reasonable jury could find that the client was grossly negligent based on the client's testimony of the safety procedures, protocols and equipment in place at the rock-climbing gym. Accordingly, the Court granted our motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's Complaint, in its entirety, against the client.

Successfully defended plaintiff's appeal in the New Jersey Appellate Division of an order granting summary judgment in favor of the client by arguing that plaintiff's claims were barred pursuant to the Workers' Compensation Act because plaintiff was a "special employee" of the client. Holmes v. Zayas, No. A-0591-15T2, 2017 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 2568 (App. Div. Oct. 13, 2017).

Obtained summary judgment in favor of the client, a non-profit charitable organization, by arguing that it was immune from liability under the New Jersey Charitable Immunity Act and there was no evidence of gross negligence against the client.

Obtained summary judgment in favor of our clients, a residential real estate agent and company, by arguing that expert testimony was required because a jury could not be reasonably expected to discern the nuances of the standard of care owed by the clients to the plaintiff on its own. Therefore, because plaintiff did not produce a liability expert report during discovery, he could not satisfy his burden of proof and the Court granted summary judgment in favor of our clients.

Obtained a defense verdict in favor of the client in a case involving plaintiff's allegations of negligent automobile repairs by proving that our client's repairs were performed in accordance with the industry's customs and standards.

Negotiated a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice, without any monetary contribution, in favor of a local college in a premises liability matter. Plaintiff claimed that, as a result of her fall on snow and ice on the sidewalk, she sustained severe injuries including a fractured ankle and she underwent open reduction internal fixation. However, using video surveillance, we were able to dispute the location of the accident and the condition of the sidewalk and obtain this favorable result for the client.