Articles Posted in Firm News

On December 28, 2010 the New York Law Journal featured GGCSMB&R attorney Ben Rubinowitz and his colleague Evan Torgan, of Torgan & Cooper. For the past ten years Ben Rubinowitz and Evan Torgan have provided expert commentary in their Trial Advocacy column to attorneys throughout the State. To date, the two have written more than 50 articles on Trial Advocacy. Known for practicing what they preach, both Evan and Ben have achieved multiple million dollar verdicts. In this months article they discuss Common Mistakes on Direct Examination. “Too often lawyers rush through direct and fail to listen appropriately to the answers that are given by the witness” said Rubinowitz. “This has the potential to result in disaster. That’s why in this article we focus on ways to cure this problem, simplify the examination and make the testimony more meaningful for the jury.

Ben Rubinowitz has been named to the faculty of The 35th Winter Urologic Forum to be held January 28 – February 1, 2011, Sheraton Steamboat Resort, Steamboat Springs, CO. Ben is the only attorney on the faculty which includes physicians from States including New York, California, Michigan and Illinois.

This meeting will identify for urologists new management strategies for prostate and bladder cancer, stone disease, incontinence, impotency and the impact of healthcare legislation on their practice. Urologists attending this meeting will learn new ways to improve overall patient care. For more information click here.

On Tuesday, November 2, 2010, Cardozo Law School held a seminar on Opening Statements for more than 100 students as a prerequisite to its Intensive Trial Advocacy Program. Featured Speakers at the lecture included Ben Rubinowitz, Robert Conason and Richard Godosky. Prof. Ellen Yaroshefsky introduced each of the three speakers as “some of the very best trial attorneys in the Country.” She went on to say that “each of the speakers is viewed as a ‘Lawyer’s Lawyer’ by practicing members of the Trial Bar. Yaroshefsky said “when a lawyer is in need of help these are the lawyers they turn to.”

Ben Rubinowitz gave a lecture and demonstration on opening statements in a civil trial focusing on appropriate representation of individuals who have been severely injured through the fault of others in car accidents, products liability and medical malpractice cases. His talk was followed by Robert Conason and Richard Godosky who demonstrated comparative methods of conducting Opening Statements.

Gair, Gair, Conason, Rubinowitz, Bloom, Hershenhorn, Steigman & Mackauf

Rankings Legal Malpractice Law – Plaintiffs

Medical Malpractice Law – Plaintiffs Personal Injury Litigation – Plaintiffs Product Liability Litigation – Plaintiffs Professional Malpractice Law – Plaintiffs

Our Partner Howard Hershenhorn has been appointed an Adjunct Associate Professor of Law at Brooklyn Law School, Brooklyn, New York. He will be teach a Seminar on Personal Injury and Medical Malpractice. This seminar will focus on the practical aspects of the fields of personal injury and medical malpractice. For more information click here.

Robert Conason is the Chair of The New York State Trial Lawyers Seminar; Mediation and Arbitration to be held on June 21, 2010 from 6:00PM -9:00PM. For more information click here.

In a New York medical malpractice case our partner Rhonda Kay obtained a reversal of the lower court’s granting of a motion to change venue. In SIMON v. USHER, 2010 NY Slip Op 03777, The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department held;

“Although the moving defendants made a timely demand for a change of venue, their motion for such relief was untimely. A defendant “may move to change the place of trial within fifteen days after service of the demand,” unless the plaintiff consents to the change of venue within five days of service of the demand (CPLR 511[b]). Here, the motion for a change of venue, made 20 days after service of the demand, must be rejected as untimely (see Singh v Becher, 249 AD2d 154 [1998]). Contrary to moving defendants’ claim, they were not entitled to the five-day extension in CPLR 2103(b)(2) for time periods measured from service by mail (see Thompson v Cuadrado, 277 AD2d 151 [2000]). Furthermore, the failure of the remaining defendants to serve a demand to change venue with or prior to their answer was fatal to their request to change venue (see Kurfis v Shore Towers Condominium, 48 AD3d 300 [2008]; CPLR 511[a]).”