Obtaining an impressive verdict from a jury, in itself, is often insufficient to achieve a favorable result for a client.  The positive resolution of sometimes complex legal issues prior to trial may be necessary in order for a case to be litigated at trial, or to obtain a favorable settlement.  Verdicts are often modified or set aside by trial courts and appellate courts. In order to fully protect clients' interests, attorneys must have the knowledge, skills, experience and resources to litigate complex legal issues that arise, prior to trial, and after verdict at trial or at the appellate level.  The attorneys at Ateshoglou & Aiello PC (A&A) have successfully litigated complex legal issues at trial and on appeal.  The following cases serve to demonstrate the manner in which the attorneys at A&A have effectively litigated legal issues at trial and on appeal in order to ensure favorable dispositions for their clients.  

       In Dillon v Motorcycle Safety School, Inc., A&A represented plaintiff in connection with his claim for injuries he sustained while obtaining motorcycle driving lessons.  He had signed a document releasing the school from liability when he registered for the lessons.  Defendant took the position that the release precluded plaintiff's  claims.  The issue was litigated prior to trial in Supreme Court, Bronx County and on appeal.  The Appellate Division, First Department decided that plaintiff could pursue his claim, notwithstanding the release.  Dillon v Motorcycle Safety School, Inc.,  59 AD3d 280, 872 NYS2d 669 (1 Dept. 2009).  The appellate decision provided an advantageous position to negotiate a settlement for plaintiff, and resulted in A&A obtaining a favorable settlement for plaintiff. 

        In Murakami v Machinist, A&A represented plaintiff in connection with his claim for injuries he sustained when he was struck by an automobile which was being driven by defendant.  A jury trial in Supreme Court, New York County, resulted in a verdict for plaintiff.  The trial court found that the verdict was excessive and modified it.  A&A appealed the order of the trial court.  The Appellate Division, First Department overruled the trial court, resulting in a final judgment for plaintiff in the full amount of the jury verdict, together with interest and costs.  Murakami v Machinist, 3 AD3d, 769 NYS2d 886 (1 Dept. 2004).

        In Whalen v Euson, A&A represented plaintiff in connection with his claim for injuries he sustained in an automobile accident.  A jury trial in Supreme Court, Nassau County, resulted in a verdict for for plaintiff which was deemed "verdict of the week" by the New York Law Journal.  The trial court set aside the verdict and dismissed plaintiff's complaint.  A&A appealed the order of the trial court, and the Appellate Division, Second Department, overruled the order of the trial court, resulting in a final judgment for plaintiff in the full amount of the jury verdict, together with interest and costs.  Whalen v Euson, 306 AD2d 342, 760 NYS2d 688 (2 Dept. 2003).   
 
         In National Surety Corp. v Town of Greenburgh, A&A represented plaintiff in connection with its claim which arose from property damage caused by a failed sewer system.  When it was determined that the sewer system was owned and operated by the defendant, Town of Greenburgh, in Westchester County, defendant took the position that plaintiff's claim was precluded as the defendant had not been served with a timely notice of claim.  The issue was litigated in Supreme Court, Westchester County, and on appeal.  The Appellate Division, second Department, found that plaintiff could maintain his claim notwithstanding the late notice of claim.   National Surety Corp. v Town of Greenburgh, 266 AD2d 550, 699 NYS2d 128 (2 Dept. 1999).  The appellate decision provided a advantageous position to negotiate a settlement for plaintiff, and resulted in A&A obtaining a favorable settlement for plaintiff. 

        In Pacholka v Kozic, A&A represented plaintiff in connection with his civil assault claim which arose from his being punched in the face by defendant during a game of ice hockey.  When the New York County District Attorney's Office dismissed the criminal assault charges against defendant, defendant counterclaimed against plaintiff for malicious prosecution in order to offset his potential liability to plaintiff and negotiate a favorable settlement for defendant.  The issue was litigated prior to trial in Supreme Court, New York County and on appeal.  The Appellate Division, First Department, dismissed the defendant's malicious prosecution claim.  Pacholka v Kozic, 236 AD2d 265, 653 NYS2d 344 (1 Dept. 1997).   The appellate decision provided a advantageous position to negotiate a settlement for plaintiff, and resulted in A&A obtaining a favorable settlement for plaintiff.