Page 17 - 2015_0429_NYLJTOPVERDICTS

2014
Halstead and Restivo were incarcerated until June 11, 2003, when their convictions were vacated. Forensic studies had proven that neither man was the source of semen that had been extracted from the victim, and the men’s attorneys discredited other evidence that suggested that the victim had been raped in a van that Restivo owned. Kogut’s conviction was also overturned.
Halstead, Restivo and Halstead’s children, Heather Halstead, Jason Halstead, Taylor Halstead and Melissa Lullo, sued detectives and policemen who were believed to have been involved in the investigation of the murder and rape, Thomas Allen, Wayne Birdsall, Richard Brusa, Michael Connaughton, Robert Dempsey, William Diehl, Vincent Donnelly, Robert Edwards, Charlie Fraas, Milton Gruber, Anthony Kozier, Albert Martino, Daniel Perrino, Jack Sharkey, Frank Sirianni, Sean Spillane, Joseph Volpe, Harry Waltman and a detective who was not identified beyond the surname of Cunningham. The plaintiffs also sued the detectives’ employer, Nassau County. The plaintiffs alleged that Restivo and Dennis Halstead were maliciously prosecuted, that they were denied their rights of due process and that they were thusly subjected to a violation of the rights guaranteed by 42 U.S.C. 1983.
Campbell and Volpe died after the suit had been filed. The case continued against their estates, though Campbell’s estate was ultimately dismissed. Allen, Birdsall, Brusa, Connaughton, Dempsey, Diehl, Donnelly, Edwards, Gruber, Kozier, Martino, Perrino, Sharkey, Sirianni, Spillane and Waltman were also dismissed. The matter proceeded to a trial against Fraas, Nassau County and Volpe’s estate.
Plaintiffs’ counsel claimed that Volpe, who led the investigation of the murder and rape, fabricated evidence that contributed to the conviction of Halstead and Restivo. Volpe claimed that Restivo’s van contained samples of the victim’s hair, but plaintiffs’ counsel contended that the hairs exhibited banding, which is evidence of decomposition that occurs after death. They argued that banding would not have been exhibited by hair that had been lost prior to the victim’s death, and they suggested that the samples were hair that had been removed during the victim’s autopsy. Plaintiffs’ counsel also contended that Fraas may have mishandled the hair that was recovered during the investigation.
Plaintiffs’ counsel further claimed that Volpe concealed evidence that suggested that the victim’s pants had been found in a stolen vehicle. However, defense counsel contended that the evidence was not exculpatory.
Defense counsel also contended that Fraas and Volpe did not mishandle the samples of the victim’s hair. They claimed that the samples did not exhibit an indication of postmortem decomposition.
INJURIES/DAMAGES On June 20, 1985, Halstead and Restivo were arrested. On Dec. 3, 1986, they were convicted. They were incarcerated until June 11, 2003.
Halstead and Restivo sought recovery of damages for wrongful confinement. Halstead’s children presented derivative claims, but their claims were not pursued.
RESULT The jury rendered a mixed verdict: It found that Volpe fabricated evidence, that Volpe maliciously prosecuted the plaintiffs, that Volpe violated the plaintiffs’ right of due process, that Fraas did not fabricate evidence, that Fraas did not maliciously prosecute the plaintiffs and that Fraas did not violate the plaintiffs’ right of due process. Thus, Volpe was liable for wrongful incarceration of the plaintiffs, and Fraas was not liable. The jury determined that the men’s damages totaled $36 million. Each was allocated $18 million.
POST TRIAL Judge Joanna Seybert denied defense counsel’s motion to set aside the verdict. EDITOR’S COMMENT This report is based on information that was provided by plain-
tiffs’ counsel. Additional information was gleaned from court documents. Defense coun- sel did not respond to the reporter’s phone calls.
NUMBER EIGHT
PRODUCTS LIABILITY
Asbestos — Failure to Warn
Gaskets, insulation blamed for workers’ mesothelioma
AMOUNT $25,000,000
TYPE Verdict-Plaintiff CASE Sweberg v. ABB Inc. VENUE New York County JUDGE Cynthia S. Kern
DATE June 16, 2014
INJURY
TYPE(S) other - death
cancer - mesothelioma pulmonary/respiratory - respiratory
PLAINTIFF(S)
PLAINTIFF ATTORNEY(S)
PLAINTIFF EXPERT(S)
Ivan Sweberg (Male, 70 Years), Selwyn A. Hackshaw (Male, 70 Years)
Jerry Kristal; Weitz & Luxenberg P.C.; Cherry Hill, NJ; and, Danny R. Kraft Jr. and Michael Fanelli; Weitz & Luxenberg P.C.; New York, NY
Neil Schachter M.D.; Pulmonology; New York, NY
David Rosner M.D.; Public Health; New York, NY
Steven Markowitz M.D.; Occupational, Environmental & Medical Toxicology; Flushing, NY
FACTS & ALLEGATIONS In mid-2012, plaintiff Ivan Sweberg, 70, a retiree, learned that he was suffering mesothelioma, which is an aggressive, incurable cancer that can result from exposure to asbestos. During a period that spanned 1962 and 1972, Sweberg, an electrician, was involved in the construction and renovation of buildings that were located in New York. Sweberg claimed that he worked in areas in which other workers were installing or removing insulation that was manufactured by Stamford, Conn.-based Crane Co. Sweberg claimed that the insulation contained asbestos, and he further claimed that his mesothelioma stems from his inhalation of fibers of the insulation’s asbestos.
During the late portion of 2012, plaintiff Selwyn Hackshaw, a retiree in his early 70s, learned that he was suffering mesothelioma.
During a period that spanned 1957 and 1964, Hackshaw, an electrician and a pipe fitter, worked at plants that were located in Curacao. His work involved the installation and repair of gaskets and valves that were manufactured by Crane. He also applied and removed materials that insulated the valves. Hackshaw claimed that his mesothelioma stems from his inhalation of fibers of asbestos that was present in the gaskets, insulation and valves that he handled.
Hackshaw sued Crane and several other companies that were believed to have manufactured and/or distributed products that contained asbestos. He alleged that the defendants failed to provide warnings that disclosed the dangers that could have stemmed from exposure to their products’ asbestos.
In a separate filing, Sweberg sued Crane and several other companies that were believed
TOP VERDICTS NY
Los Angeles
5777 West Century Blvd. Suite 1415
Los Angeles, CA 90045 Tel 310-342-7170
San Francisco
555 Montgomery St. Suite 601
San Francisco, CA 94111 Tel 415-835-5958
New York
299 Broadway Suite 208
New York, NY 10007 Tel 212-430-5959
-Continued on p18
Contact:
Elena Perrotta Director of Marketing & Business Development Tel 310-342-7170 [email protected]
On The Record® (OTR) is a full service trial presentation and litigation support firm.
We provide fully integrated evidence presentation systems at trials as well as other dispute resolution proceedings. For over 19 years, On The Record® has assisted attorneys worldwide in delivering powerful, persuasive and effective trial presentations. We incorporate documents, photographs, graphics, video, animation and other exhibits into a clear and convincing computer- based courtroom presentation.
OTR Services Include:
• TrialPresentationConsultants • GraphicsConsultants
• 2D&3DGraphics&Animation
• MultimediaPresentations
• ExperiencedHot-SeatTrialTechs • On-siteTrialSupport
• EquipmentRental
• VideoServices(Depositions,Video
toTranscriptSynchronization&Editing, Custom Videos, etc.)
Our trial consultant-technicians are experienced in high stakes civil litigation and easily integrate into the trial team. We understand the demands of large complex litigation and conform to the varying styles of the numerous litigators. We set up our own tested and proven equipment in court and run the evidence presentation system if you desire. Our company-wide resume includes work on over 1650 cases. From the conference room to the war room to the courtroom, OTR provides customized presentation support services and equipment configu- rations for any litigation communications challenge and venue. Call us today for a free estimate.
www.ontherecord.com
VerdictSearch’s Top New York Verdicts of 2014 17