Board of Education of East Syracuse-Minoa Cent. School Dist. v. Commissioner of Educ.,
145 A.D.2d 13 (3d Dept. 1989), app. denied 74 N.Y.2d 890 (1989)

    Mr. Schulz filed a brief amici curiae with the Appellate Division, and a
   compelling statement in opposition to the plaintiff's motion in the Court of
    Appeals that sought permission to appeal; the Appellate Division held that
    Supreme Court misconstrued the Education Law in requiring unanimous
   agreement of component school districts before Boces could proceed to
    renovate its facilities; the Court of Appeals denied plaintiff's motion for
   permission to appeal, which Mr. Schulz opposed



Canh Du v. Hamell, 19 A.D.3d 1000 (4th Dept. 2005)

            Utica, New York when he was struck, knocked to the pavement
     and seriously injured by a pickup truck owned by defendant Utica
    Head Start and operated by defendant Hamell;  defendants moved
    for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, arguing that there
    was no evidence showing that Hamell was negligent;  plaintiffs
    cross-moved for summary judgment on the issue of negligence;
    the trial court denied the defendants' motion and granted the plaintiffs'
    cross-motion; Mr. Schulz represented the plaintiffs in the Appellate
     Division, which upheld the denial of the defendants' motion; the court further
     ruled that plaintiffs sought summary judgment under the usual standards,
     not the lesser burden of persuasion under the Noseworthy rule for amnesiacs,
     and found that the evidence established defendant Hamell's failure to yield the
     right of way to plaintiff; modifying the trial court's order, the Appellate
     Division remanded for a jury trial on the issues of proximate cause and
     damages




Chamberlain, D'Amanda, Oppenheimer & Greenfield v. Beauchamp, 247 A.D.2d 858 (4th Dept.
1998)

    "conditional" preclusion orders were being criticized (see 76 Siegel's Prac.
   Rev. 4), Mr. Schulz's brief and oral argument prompted the Appellate Division
   to uphold Supreme Court's discretion in granting that relief in connection with
   defendants' failure to serve a timely bill of particulars regarding their
   $14,000,000 counterclaim in an action to recover legal fees



Dolce v. Powalski, 13 A.D.3d 1200 (4th Dept. 2004)

   summary judgement dismissing the plaintiffs’ claims stemming from
   serious injuries caused by squamous cell carcinoma that was misdiagnosed
   by the defendants for a decade; alternatively, the defendants moved to limit
   recovery to the 2½-year statute of limitations period; the plaintiffs cross-moved
   to dismiss the defendants’ statue of limitations defenses; the trial court denied
   the defendants’ motions except to the extent that the plaintiff husband’s derivative
   claim preceded the 2½-year period of limitations; the court granted the plaintiffs’
   cross-motion as to the dentist, but denied that relief as to the defendant medical
   doctor; the defendants appealed, and the plaintiffs cross-appealed; in the Appellate
   Division, Mr. Schulz briefed and argued the case for the plaintiffs; the court agreed
   with his analysis, denying the defendants' motions in their entirety and granting
   the plaintiffs’ cross-motion to dismiss the medical doctor’s statute of limitations
   affirmative defense


Doty v. Navistar Int'l. Transp. Co., 89 N.Y.2d 802 (1996)

    the defendants' motion for permission to appeal in a product liability action
   involving a rotating leveling auger in the grain bin of a farm combine where
    the nine-year-old plaintiff lost his left arm, sustained other serious injuries, and
   recovered a verdict of $3 million


Fisher-Price, Inc. v. Well-Made Toy Mfg. Corp., 25 F.3d 119 (2d Cir. 1994)

    in an affirmance of a district court order that enjoined the defendant from
    infringing on plaintiff's copyright for a popular soft-bodied rag doll



Fuller v. Marcello [Hoffman defendants], 17 A.D.3d 1017 (4th Dept. 2005), and Fuller v. Marcello
[Pino Restaurant defendants], 17 A.D.3d 1019 (4th Dept. 2005), lv. app. denied   N.Y.S.2d    ,
2005 WL 1579510 (4th Dept. 2005)

   her food when another customer, defendant Marcello, drove his car from the
    parking lot into the area where plaintiff and others were waiting; in separate
    orders Supreme Court granted the summary judgment motions made by
   defendant property owners (Hoffman) and defendant owner of the restaurant
    business (Pino Restaurant), respectively, holding that defendant driver's act
    was unforeseeable and constituted a superceding intervening cause of the
    plaintiff's injuries; distinguishing the cases cited by Supreme Court, and noting
    the absence of protective barriers between the parking lot and the windows
    where patrons ordered, paid for, and picked up their food, the Appellate
    Division agreed with Mr. Schulz's analysis, reversed both orders, reinstated
    the complaint as to the property and business owners, and denied their
    respective motions for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeals



General Elec. Credit Corp. v. Tri-Delta Constr. Corp., 134 A.D.2d 933 (4th Dept. 1987)

   counsel Mr. Schulz briefed and argued the NFTA's appeal in a case seeking
    damages related to an aircraft damaged while taxiing in a construction area,
    and obtained a new trial where the verdict sheet failed to address all of the
    issues necessary to deciding the NFTA's right to contractual indemnification


Joseph Barsuk, Inc. v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., 281 A.D.2d 875 (4th Dept. 2001), app.
denied 726 N.Y.S.2d 43 (4th Dept. 2001), lv. app. dsmd. 97 N.Y.2d 638 (2001)

   appeals in an action for damages arising from the defendant's breach of a
   lucrative scrap contract; the appeals were taken from orders by two different
   Supreme Court Justices, which granted defendant summary judgment
   dismissing the complaint and granted the defendant summary judgment as to
    liability on its counterclaims, respectively;  when Mr. Schulz was retained, the
    plaintiff was out of court on its complaint, and in court defending against the
   defendant's multi-million dollar counterclaims; the Appellate Division agreed
    with Mr. Schulz's analysis, reversed both orders, reinstated the complaint, and
    dismissed all of the defendant's counterclaims as barred by the statute of
   limitations; thereafter, plaintiff's damages trial resulted in a judgment for more
   than $1 million


In re Niagara Fron. Tr. Auth. (Computer Sciences Corp.), 209 A.D.2d 1009 (4th Dept. 1994), app.
denied 85 NY.2d 804 (1995)

    from many hundreds of changes to a Light Rail Rapid Transit communication
    system in Buffalo, Mr. Schulz briefed and argued in response to the NFTA's
    appeal from a judgment that denied the stay and held that the contractor had
     complied with the contractual notice and claim requirements; based upon Mr.
     Schulz's analysis, the Appellate Division rejected the NFTA's lack of notice
    argument and unanimously affirmed the judgment; Mr. Schulz successfully
   opposed the NFTA's motion in the Court of Appeals which sought
    permission to appeal


Kent v. Paper Companies, Inc., 309 A.D.2d 234 (1st Dept. 2003)

   Inc. in responding to plaintiff's appeal from an order that granted Landon
   summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff's sex and age discrimination claims;
   on the basis of a strong opinion by Justice Sullivan, the Appellate Division
   held that Landon did not act unlawfully in not hiring plaintiff after acquiring
   the assets of defendant Papert Companies, Inc. by whom plaintiff had been
   employed for many years


Leo v. Artco Contracting, Inc., 266 A.D.2d 808 (4th Dept. 1999)

   plaintiff, an iron worker who could not tie off while working on a structural
    steel beam 40 feet above the ground, and who fell when struck by another
    beam being maneuvered into position by a crane; factual issues precluded
    summary judgment for the plaintiffs as to liability, but upon remand the case
    settled for $7 million on the strength of the analysis and argument presented
    in Mr. Schulz's responding brief and oral argument


Maharan v. Berkshire Life Ins. Co., 108 F.3d 1370 (2d Cir. 1997)

   insurance policies, Mr. Schulz successfully opposed the carrier's motion for
    a stay in the district court, and presented written and oral arguments that
   persuaded the Court of Appeals to sustain the judgment holding the carrier
   liable for the full value of the insurance policies


Mangione v. Dunn, 286 A.D.2d 924 (4th Dept. 2001)

    defendants' appeal from an order that denied their motion for summary
    judgment dismissing the complaint; the young plaintiff, one of five youthful
    occupants in a small sport model automobile, was seriously injured and two
    of the other occupants were killed, when the defendant's 18-wheel tractor-
    trailer collided with the car and flipped it into the air; in an appeal by
    defendants represented by national, state and local counsel, the Appellate
   Division unanimously affirmed the order in light of material factual issues and
    erroneous defense arguments discussed by Mr. Schulz

MDS Health Group, Inc. v. Carmichael, 258 A.D.2d 876 (4th Dept. 1999)

     subject to an employment contract containing a six-month, 125-mile radius
    noncompete agreement; the employment agreement was independent of a
    preexisting long term incentive agreement pursuant to which annual bonus
    decisions were made; after acquiring information that prompted it not to
    renew the employment contract, plaintiff relieved defendant of his official
    duties and involuntarily terminated his employment as of the end of the
    employment contract; prior to leaving his employment with plaintiff, however,
    defendant colluded with plaintiff's largest customer to form a medical
     laboratory that would compete with plaintiff's business in direct conflict with
     the noncompete agreement; the jury awarded plaintiff damages upon finding
     that defendant had breached the employment contract; based upon faulty jury
     instructions, however, the jury awarded defendant a greater amount for the
     bonus asserted in his counterclaim; the judgment awarded defendant the
     difference; Mr. Schulz represented plaintiff in the Appellate Division, which
     agreed with his analysis of the employment and incentive agreements, and the
     erroneous jury instructions; modifying the judgment, the Appellate Division
     determined that defendant was not entitled to a bonus, vacated the award to
     the defendant in its entirety, and left intact the award to the plaintiff


Murray Warehouse, Inc. v. Abelove, 170 A.D.2d 1027 (4th Dept. 1991)

   new trial after the jury rendered a verdict against the defendant attorneys in
   a legal malpractice action; plaintiffs claimed that the defendants were negligent
    in failing to include a particular parcel of commercial real estate in a second
   mortgage, but Mr. Schulz demonstrated how the record showed that the
   verdict was not supported by any fair interpretation of the evidence



Newco Waste Systems, Inc. v. Swartzenberg, 125 A.D.2d 1006 (4th Dept. 1986)

    duty, the solid waste industry giant, Browning-Ferris Industries, Inc. and its
    local subsidiary, sued defendant Brian Swartzenberg and his new company,
    Integrated Waste Systems, Inc., after Swartzenberg terminated his
    employment; Browning-Ferris alleged that Swartzenberg possessed
    confidential information and was a "special, unique and extraordinary
    employee;" after a hearing, Supreme Court granted Browning-Ferris a
    preliminary injunction; Swartzenberg and his new company appealed;
    Mr. Schulz performed the legal analysis and wrote the appellate brief that
    persuaded the Appellate Division to reverse the order and deny Browning-
    Ferris's motion for injunctive relief


Nojaim Bros., Inc. v CNA Ins. Companies, 113 A.D.2d 109 (4th Dept. 1985)

    declaratory judgment action, as appellate counsel Mr. Schulz succeeded in
    obtaining an Appellate Division decision denying summary judgment to the
    defendant insurer on the issue of the agency's actual or implied authority to
   remove from an insurance policy a clause that excluded liability coverage for
   the plaintiff super market with respect to injuries that resulted from the super
   market's sale of alcoholic beverages


North Clymer Farm Serv., Inc. v. Agway, Inc., 2 Fed. Appx. 114 (2d Cir. 2001)

    appellee's brief that persuaded the Second Circuit Court of Appeals to affirm
   a district court order that dismissed the plaintiff's complaint


O'Connell v. Jacobs, 181 A.D. 2d 1064 (4th Dept. 1992), aff'd. 81 N.Y. 2d 797 (1993)

   the Appellate Division to reverse the judgment and dismiss the injured
    plaintiff's complaint because there was no evidence supporting her claim that
   the young defendant caused her injuries; the brief prepared by Mr. Schulz in
   opposition to the plaintiff's appeal to the Court of Appeals resulted in a
    unanimous affirmance of the Appellate Division's dismissal of the complaint


Pagels v. P.V.S. Chem., Inc., 266 A.D.2d 819 (4th Dept. 1999)

   (fibromyalgia and chronic pain syndrome) caused by an automobile accident,
   the Appellate Division agreed with Mr. Schulz's argument that the court
    properly relied on uncertified copies of medical records submitted by
    defendants in support of their summary judgment motion, and that the dispute
    between the medical experts raised credibility issues that could not be decided
    summarily by the court


Pahuta v. Massey-Ferguson, Inc., 170 F.3d 125 (2d Cir. 1999)

    plaintiff, who was seriously injured when a heavy steel conduit rolled down
   raised arms of a tractor loader he was operating; because of the absence of
   overhead protection or self-leveling loader arms, the conduit struck the
   plaintiff's spinal column and left him paralyzed from the waist down;
   Mr. Schulz represented the plaintiff in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals,
   which directly addressed for the first time the question of whether, after a jury
   trial, generally no appeal lies from an order that denied the defendant's
   summary judgment motion, particularly where the defendant failed to move
    for judgment as a matter of law at the close of all the proof; with regard to an
   error in the jury charge on the pivotal issue of optional overhead protective
    devices allegedly "available" for installation on this multi-use tractor loader,
    the court defined the elements of Biss v. Tenneco, Inc., 64 A.D.2d 204
    (4th Dept. 1978), app. denied 46 N.Y.2d 711 (1979), in lock step with Mr.
    Schulz's discussion of the evidence; upon remand for a new trial, the case
    settled for an amount that exceeded the jury's verdict


People v. Matthew, 47 A.D.2d 749 (2d Dept. 1975)

    defendant neurosurgeon, fashioned a factual and legal analysis of the case that
   resulted in an Appellate Division memorandum and order unanimously
   reversing the judgment of conviction on 71 counts of grand larceny,
    dismissing the indictment, and noting that even if the verdict were
    "unassailable" the court would have modified the judgment by reducing to
    probation the sentences of imprisonment imposed by the trial court


Rappold v. Snorac, Inc., 289 A.D.2d 1044 (4th Dept. 2001), rearg. denied 742 N.Y.S.2d 595
(4th Dept. 2002), lv. app. dsmd. 98 N.Y.2d 671 (2002), app. denied 98 N.Y.2d 614 (2002)

    injury action ($19 million), Mr. Schulz worked with talented and determined
    trial attorneys to develop and fine tune the plaintiffs' legal theory in this difficult
    traumatic brain injury case, drafted the plaintiffs' motion for summary
    judgment as to liability later sustained by the Appellate Division, drafted
    several motions in limine with supporting briefs, drafted the plaintiffs' papers
    that opposed the several defendants' post-trial motions, assisted in drafting
    the judgment, researched and wrote the plaintiffs' 85-page appellate brief
    which, as the court's questions during oral argument clearly revealed, greatly
    assisted the Appellate Division in upholding the summary determination as to
    liability and in affirming substantial damages for the seriously injured plaintiff;
    Mr. Schulz also prepared all of the plaintiffs' papers that led to both decisions
    by the Court of Appeals declining to review the defendants' motions for
    permission to appeal


Riordan v. Boces of Rochester, 4 A.D.3d 869 (4th Dept. 2004)

   Supreme Court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment
    dismissing the complaint; as appellate counsel for the plaintiff, Mr. Schulz
    provided the Appellate Division with analysis and argument that fully
    supported its conclusion that the defendant failed to demonstrate that it lacked
   the right or authority to control the work site, or have active or constructive
   knowledge of the injury producing dangerous condition that existed on the
    premises it leased from the East Rochester School District


Scanlan v. State, 270 A.D.2d 976 (4th Dept. 2000)

    he fell from a vertical ladder in a concrete drainage irrigation structure below
    ground level, where he was required to work without any safety devices, in
   affirming summary judgment as to liability for the plaintiff the Appellate
   Division agreed with Mr. Schulz's factual and legal analysis that §240(1)
   applied to this underground work site and that the absence of protective
   devices proximately caused the plaintiff's injuries


Schiller V. National Presto Indus., 225 A.D.2d 1053 (4th Dept. 1996)

    Mr. Schulz was requested to perfect an appeal on behalf of defendant National
   Presto Industries from an order that denied its motion for summary judgment
    dismissing the plaintiff's failure to warn claim; the infant plaintiff was injured
    when her mother left her unattended and within reach of the cord that
   supplied electric power to heat the deep fryer manufactured by National
    Presto; the manufacturer's express warnings cautioned the consumer to guard
    against this specific hazard, and the evidence showed that the mother was well
    aware of the hazard and her nine-month-old daughter's growing propensity to
    grab objects; in agreeing with Mr. Schulz's factual and legal analysis, the
    Appellate Division  granted National Presto's motion despite the decisional
    law holding that the adequacy of a warning is generally a fact issue for the jury


Stoyle v. Schaub, 244 A.D.2d 1015 (4th Dept. 1997), lv. app. dsmd. 91 N.Y.2d 1003 (1998), lv. app.
dsmd. 93 N.Y.2d 884 (1999), rearg. denied 93 N.Y.2d 946 (1999)

   a gift that accompanied a promise of marriage, the Appellate Division agreed
    with the detailed analysis of the facts and applicable statutory and decisional
    law presented by Mr. Schulz as the defendant's appellate counsel; the court
    unanimously affirmed the dismissal of the complaint


Tornabene v. Pawlewski, 305 A.D.2d 1025 (4th Dept. 2003)

    in a collision in which the defendant failed to obey a stop sign and, instead,
    broadsided the plaintiff's vehicle, as appellate counsel Mr. Schulz successfully
    represented the plaintiff in the Appellate Division; the court agreed with his
    analysis that the defendant's own papers supported the plaintiff's allegations
   that she had sustained a permanent consequential limitation of use of a body
    organ or member, and a significant limitation of use of a body function or
    system (cervical/lumbar spine), both serious injuries within the meaning of
   Insurance Law §5102(d)


Vitez v. Shelton, 6 A.D.2d 1180 4th Dept. 2004)

   violently rear-ended by a trailer being towed at high speed by the defendant
   as he sought to elude pursuing police officers, Supreme Court granted the
    defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint ruling that the plaintiff did not
   sustain a serious injury; agreeing with analysis and arguments advanced by
   Mr. Schulz as appellate counsel, the Appellate Division modified the order
   and reinstated the complaint with respect to the plaintiff's permanent
    consequential limitation of use of a body organ or member, and significant
    limitation of use of a body function or system


Wendling v. Lovejoy, 154 A.D.2d 529 (2d Dept. 1989), app. denied 75 N.Y.2d 705 (1990)

    the driving lane of the Queens Boulevard service road; an 18-wheel tractor-
   trailer rig was being operated in the passing lane; the plaintiff was standing
    between the tail gate and the cargo bed of a pickup truck in the curb parking
    lane as these vehicles approached his location; in Supreme Court the parties
    stipulated to damages, and proceeded to trial solely on the issue of liability;
    the jury found that the tractor-trailer defendants were 90% liable for the
    plaintiff's injuries; Mr. Schulz appeared as appellate counsel for the truck
    driver and the companies that owned and leased the tractor-trailer; the
    Appellate Division completely agreed with his analysis that the evidence was
    legally insufficient to sustain any verdict against the tractor-trailer defendants,
    and that the verdict was irrational; the court reversed the judgment and
    dismissed the complaint against the tractor-trailer defendants; Mr. Schulz
    successfully opposed the motion in the Court of Appeals in which the bus
   driver sought permission to appeal


RETURN TO TOP
Sampling of Reported Decisions . . .
HOME
MEMBERSHIP
EXPERIENCE
EDUCATION
CONTACT