John P. DePaolo obtained a verdict on behalf of his client who was sued as a result of a dog bite injury, which alleged that the particular canine exhibited vicious propensities.  Despite the use by plaintiff’s counsel of large images showing the wound to the infant plaintiff, the jury adhered to their oath as jurors to return a verdict based only upon the credible and believable evidence consistent with the law.  Plaintiff’s counsel asserted that two isolated incidents were sufficient for the jury to conclude that the canine had vicious propensitities.  The two incidents of the 4-year-old canine were typical canine behavior and the jury wasted no time in returning a verdict in favor of the defendant in less than one hour.  The case was tried in the New York State Supreme Court for an incident that occured over 4 years earlier.

During early March 2011, John P. DePaolo tried a case against two other lawyers before Judge Dadd in Wyoming County.  After ten (10) days of proof, the plaintiff failed to appear when he was scheduled to be cross-examined by DePaolo.  Plaintiff’s counsel requested a mistrial at that point.  Throughout the trial, DePaolo cross-examined multiple experts brought into Court by plaintiff’s counsel and DePaolo confirmed a very strong defense case.  Included in the plaintiff’s proof were a spine surgeon, a pain management physician, a worker’s compensation independent neurologist, a worker’s compensation independent orthopedist, a vocational rehabilitation counselor and a treating neurologist.  The vocational rehabilitation counselor had worked with the same claimant in the past, but had lost all of his notes and records from his prior involvement.  The plaintiff had significant pre-existing claims and treatment history, which were identical to the claims asserted in the lawsuit against DePaolo’s client.  The plaintiff was working in the course of his employment on the New York State Thruway when his work vehicle was rear ended by DePaolo’s client.  The past medical information was significantly damaging to the plaintiff’s claim that he was injured in the accident with DePaolo’s client.  There were multiple prior worker’s compensation claims, such that the plaintiff had worked very seldom throughout his life.  At the time that the plaintiff did not appear for his cross-examination and the plaintiff’s attorneys moved for a mistrial, DePaolo opposed the mistrial motion and made a separate motion to dismiss the complaint with prejudice.  Judge Dadd granted a mistrial.  The plaintiff’s attorneys in this matter spent over $70,000.00 for the testimony of six (6) experts at trial.  No new trial date has been set.

John P. DePaolo went to trial during mid-March 2011 and obtained a no cause verdict on behalf of his client.  The plaintiff alleged that DePaolo’s client was negligent in making a left-hand turn at the intersection of Sheridan Drive and North Forest Road in Amherst.  DePaolo’s client was situated in the intersection northbound on North Forest intending to make a left to proceed on Sheridan Drive.  She had her directional and headlights illuminated.  It was daylight hours.  DePaolo produced several non-party witnesses, who confirmed that his client had been in the intersection for a period of time waiting to make a left when the light turned yellow and red and she then proceeded to clear the intersection.  The plaintiff, driving a Cadillac Escalade, was proceeding southbound on North Forest and was late for his daughter’s ballet recital at Union Road and Cleveland Drive.  DePaolo proved circumstantially that the plaintiff entered the intersection against a red light and t-boned his client’s vehicle sending it spinning 180 degrees in a counter clockwise fashion.  The jury’s verdict found the adverse vehicle was 100% at fault for the happening of the accident.

John P. DePaolo’s client was sued by a female plaintiff snowmobile passenger.  DePaolo’s client was operating a snowmobile on the same trail, but in the opposite direction.  Plaintiff sustained a comminuted fracture of both the tibia and fibula of her left leg just above the ankle joint.  DePaolo brought a third-party action against the operator of the snowmobile upon which the plaintiff was a passenger and successfully proved that the third-party defendant was 50% at fault.  Plaintiff never brought suit against the other person liable before the jury’s verdict.  Leading up to the trial, the plaintiff’s demand was in excess of $500,000.00.  On April 15, 2011, the jury returned a verdict of $100,000.00 past pain and suffering and $50,000.00 future pain and suffering.  DePaolo’s client’s equitable share of the verdict is a total of $75,000.00.  As the statute of limitations has not run, plaintiff’s attorney is indicating that they will be suing on a direct cause of action, the third-party defendant (who has since the loss become married to the plaintiff).