MARKS, O’NEILL, O’BRIEN, DOHERTY & KELLY WELCOMES NEW LITIGATION ATTORNEYS TO NY AND NJ OFFICES

 


Marks, O’Neill, O’Brien, Doherty & Kelly is proud to welcome it’s new litigation attorneys to our NY and NJ offices. This group of professionals includes well-respected and accomplished attorneys across all of our practice groups, each possessing unique skills and experiences, and ready to move our firm to its next chapter.  

“Our firm’s growth is solidified by deep and long-standing loyalties of clients whose moral compass sets a powerful industry standard. Our resilience and resurgence is fueled and cultivated from true character, by capable and ethically-driven practitioners,” shares Marks O’Neill shareholder, Joseph O’Neill.

New York City:

Chris Caiazzo

William Murphy IV

 

New Jersey:

Kandace Brackins 

Bernadette Irace

Paul Kelly

 

“It’s a privilege to work with such talented and conscientious professionals. What sets us apart is our ability and willingness to do what is hard, and do it better than others,” says Dawn Doherty, Marks O’Neill shareholder.

Marks, O’Neill, O’Brien, Doherty & Kelly has been at the forefront of defense litigation for over thirty years representing the interests of corporations, carriers and individual clients.  With offices in Pennsylvania (Philadelphia and Pittsburgh), New JerseyDelaware, New York (Manhattan and Westchester County) and Maryland, Marks, O’Neill, O’Brien, Doherty & Kelly offers our clients a regional approach to their litigation needs.

SWIFT AND ZEALOUS DEFENSE BY MOODK ATTORNEYS LEADS TO EARLY DISMISSAL OF ALL CLAIMS AGAINST CLIENTS IN MULTI-MILLION DOLLAR CASE

MOODK Philadelphia attorneys, Kevin J. O’Brien and Casey G. McCurdy, obtained early dismissals for their clients involving a tragic accident on Broad Street which resulted in the amputation of both of Plaintiff’s legs. Plaintiff was unloading furniture on Broad Street outside of a condominium complex when he was struck full-speed by another vehicle. Plaintiff sued the condominium association and property management company asserting negligence and arguing that both defendants failed to provide a usable area to load/unload furniture that was not on Broad Street, and failed to implement safety measures on Broad Street to protect residents unloading/loading vehicles. Plaintiff sought millions of dollars in damages. Attorneys O’Brien and McCurdy filed preliminary objections arguing that neither the association nor the property management company owed a duty to Plaintiff, even if their employees directed Plaintiff to park on Broad Street (as was alleged in the Complaint). The attorneys argued that the accident occurred entirely on Broad Street, which is considered a State highway that is maintained by the Commonwealth. They further argued that under Pennsylvania law, an adjacent landowner to a public highway is not liable for physical harm caused to travelers upon the highway or persons lawfully using the highway. The attorneys argued that there was nothing on their clients’ property which contributed to and/or caused the injuries and damages to Plaintiff. They further argued that prior knowledge of others parking in an active lane of traffic on Broad Street in the past was irrelevant, since the area is not controlled or maintained by their clients. The Court agreed with the attorneys’ reasoning and issued an Order dismissing all claims against their clients, with prejudice.

MOTION TO DISMISS GRANTED IN OPIOID LITIGATION

Sean Kelly of Marks O’Neill’s New Jersey office represented a pharmacy in a wrongful death claim action filed against the manufacturers and prescribers of various opioids. We filed a Motion to Dismiss arguing that there was no plausible cause of action pled under New Jersey Law against our pharmacy client.  After a persuasive oral argument, the court agreed, granted our motion and dismissed all claims against our client.

 

New Jersey Class Action Victory

Sean Kelly of Marks O’Neill’s New Jersey office scored a victory in obtaining summary judgment on behalf of a medical billing company in a putative class action.  On behalf of the Class, Plaintiff claimed that our client’s written communications violated the FDCPA by inclusion of a code that was visible on the outside of its envelope.  We argued that discovery demonstrated that the Plaintiff lacked standing, having suffered no concrete or actionable harm under the Supreme Court’s decision in Spokeo.  We were also able to distinguish our client’s code from other markings that the Third Circuit found to violate the FDCPA.  The District Court granted summary judgment, dismissing all claims.