During this unprecedented time where businesses are scrambling to address the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, we want to let you know that Burke, Scolamiero and Hurd is prepared to operate in accordance with recommended business guidelines. Our entire team, who operate out of our three offices, are equipped to conduct business as usual.
Our attorneys in the field are taking extra precautions for safety and will continue to provide services in the upcoming weeks and months. In addition, all of our office workers, including secretaries, paralegals , and litigation support associates, will be working split schedules and remotely to provide you with uninterrupted service.
Moving forward, please stay safe and follow the recommended guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control. We will keep you all in our thoughts and prayers and continue to provide updates as developments transpire.
Attorney Steven DeBraccio successfully defended an appeal from a grant of summary judgment at the Second Circuit, dismissing plaintiff’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against our clients. Plaintiff alleged that he suffered necrotizing pancreatitis has a result of deficient medical care while in jail. Jessica Darrow also assisted in successfully moving for summary judgment before the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York, and Mr. DeBraccio defended the District Court’s decision at the Second Circuit, arguing, among other things, that there was no policy to deprive inmates (including plaintiff) of his civil right to healthcare, and that staff were not deliberately indifferent to plaintiff’s medical needs and thus complied with their constitutional obligations.
Attorney Jeffrey Hurd got a no cause at a trial in St. Lawrence County. Plaintiff claimed that he slipped and fell on a ramp outside a hospital emergency department because the ramp was hazardous due to a steep slope, lack of handrails, and slippery paint. Plaintiff also argued that the ramp was not in compliance with the building code. Mr. Hurd successfully argued that the ramp was reasonably safe, not a hazard, and that the subject building code did not apply to the ramp as there was no new construction or substantial renovation at the premises.