New York Verdicts
Find out about the most important recent New York cases, selected by VerdictSearch editors. Coverage includes Bronx, Kings, Queens, New York, Nassau, Suffolk and Westchester counties. Subscribe to VerdictSearch for access to all New York verdictsPricing OptionsType:
Verdict-Defendant
State:
New York
Venue:
Westchester County
Court:
Westchester Supreme
Injury Type(s):
eye neurological-neurological impairment sensory/speech-hearing; partial loss of
pulmonary/respiratory
Case Type:
Toxic Torts – MoldInsurance – Denial of ClaimContracts – Breach of ContractPremises Liability – Dangerous Condition, Negligent Repair and/or Maintenance
Case Name:
William J Reisman v. Fortunato Cambareri Zurich North America; Maryland Casualty Co,
No. 3329/10
Date:
September 30, 2013
Plaintiff(s):
William J. Reisman (Male, 53 Years)
Plaintiff Attorney(s):
Frank J. Cattarrasa;
Frank J. Cattarrassa, Esq.;
Valhalla,
NY,
for
William J. Reisman
Plaintiff Expert(s):
Irene Grant;
M.D.;
Internal Medicine;
Tarrytown,
NY called by
Frank J. Cattarrasa ■ Charles Schwartz;
Industrial Hygiene;
Ardsley,
NY called by
Frank J. Cattarrasa
Defendant(s):
Fortunato Cambareri,
Zurich North America,
Maryland Casualty Co.
Defense Attorney(s):
Robert S. Ondrovic;
Boeggeman, George & Corde, P.C.;
White Plains,
NY,
for
Fortunato Cambareri ■ None reported;
for
Zurich North America, Maryland Casualty Co.
Defendent Expert(s):
Frederick Cogen;
Allergy/Asthma/Immunology;
Haddonfield,
NJ called by
Robert S. Ondrovic
Insurer(s):
New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance Co. for Cambareri
On Feb. 8, 2008, plaintiff William Reisman, 53, the owner of a printing business, discovered that his workplace’s ceiling was leaking. Two other leaks occurred during the ensuing week. Reisman claimed that the leaks damaged some of his business’s equipment. He replaced and/or repaired the damaged equipment, but the resultant costs were not reimbursed by the premises’ insurers, Maryland Casualty Co. and Zurich North America. The premises’ owner, Fortunato Cambareri, subsequently commissioned a repair of the damaged ceiling. Mold was discovered inside of the ceiling and several walls. Reisman claimed that he unknowingly inhaled spores of the mold. He further claimed that he suffered resultant impairment of his audition, his neurological functions and his respiration. Reisman sued Cambareri, Maryland Casualty and Zurich North America. Reisman alleged that Cambareri was negligent in his maintenance of the premises, that Cambareri’s negligence created a dangerous condition and that the insurers breached their respective insurance contracts. Reisman, Maryland Casualty and Zurich North America negotiated a pretrial settlement. The insurers agreed to pay a total of $18,000. The matter proceeded to a trial against Cambareri. Reisman claimed that Cambareri had repaired four or more other leaks that occurred during a period that spanned 1997 and 2007. As such, Reisman‘s counsel argued that Cambareri had constructive notice of the presence of mold. Reisman‘s expert hygienist noted that tests revealed that Reisman‘s urine contained Aspergillus and Stachybotrys, which are species of mold. The expert contended that Aspergillus and Stachybotrys were detected in Cambareri’s premises. Defense counsel contended that Cambareri had not been aware of any mold that may have harmed Reisman.
In February 2008, mold was discovered in the ceilings of Reisman‘s workplace. Reisman claimed that he inadvertently inhaled spores of the mold. He also claimed that he experienced resultant irritation of his eyes. On July 31, 2008, he permanently abandoned the premises. In 2010, mold was discovered inside of the premises’ walls. In 2011, Reisman presented to an internist. He reported that he was suffering impairment of his audition, his neurological functions and his respiration. The doctor ultimately concluded that the symptoms were a result of Reisman‘s inhalation of the spores of mold. Reisman claimed that he also experienced residual balding. Reisman sought recovery of damages for past and future pain and suffering. He also sought recovery of lost profits that stemmed from the unavailability of equipment that was damaged by leaks, but that claim was dismissed. The defense’s expert allergist opined that Reisman‘s symptoms are not a result of Reisman having inhaled the spores of mold. The expert contended that the medical and scientific communities believe that inhalation’s harmful effects are restricted to those who suffer impairment of their immunity. The expert suggested that Reisman‘s symptoms stem from Reisman‘s ingestion of mold. He alternatively suggested that the symptoms could be a result of an allergic reaction. However, Reisman‘s expert internist contended that experts are increasingly espousing the belief that illness can result from the inhalation of spores of mold.
The jury rendered a defense verdict. It found that Cambareri was negligent in his maintenance of the premises, but it also found that Cambareri’s negligence was not the proximate cause of Reisman‘s injuries.
Judge:
Robert M. DiBella
Demand:
$150,000 (from Cambareri)
Offer:
$7,500 (by Cambareri)
Trial Length:
5
days
Trial Deliberations:
2.5
hours
Jury Vote:
5-1 (Cambareri was negligent in the maintenance of his premises); 6-0 (Cambareri’s negligence was not the proximate cause of ‘s injuries)
Jury Composition:
2 male/ 4 female
This report is based on information that was provided by plaintiff’s counsel and Cambareri’s counsel. The remaining defendants’ counsel was not asked to contribute.