Goldberg Segalla partner Emilio F. Grillo secured a first-of-its-kind decision in New York State when a Suffolk County Court judge permitted cross examination of a RICO defendant, setting the stage for Emilio to notch a favorable ruling for our client in a damages trial connected to a worksite injury case. 

Plaintiff’s counsel initially filed a motion to bar any questions pertaining to the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act allegations against a physician appearing as a witness during the trial. Anticipating this move, Emilio — who was assisted in the case by Goldberg Segalla partner Frank G. DiSpirito — countered by opposing the motion on grounds the allegations involved prior “bad acts” of the witness and were thus proper for cross examination purposes. 

The judge allowed Emilio — a nationally recognized trial attorney and co-chair of our firm’s Civil Litigation and Trial practice group — to cross examine the physician. But in doing so, the judge also set strict parameters. Nonetheless, Emilio was able to pose significant questions to the physician pertinent to the RICO suit, paving the way for the favorable ruling for our client. 

The case stemmed from an alleged traumatic brain injury suffered by a 49-year-old union bridge painter, who fell 20 feet from an unsecured scaffold. The injury allegedly required a spinal fusion performed by the physician at center of the cross examination. 

Emilio argued the plaintiff lied about the height of his fall and was not as hurt as he claimed since he resumed working after the accident, drove home, and did not seek medical treatment until a week later. He also noted the plaintiff’s pre- and post-accident films showed no change regarding the condition of his L5-S1 vertebrae, adding too there was no evidence of a TBI.  

Emilio further argued the physician’s testimony lacked credibility, and the plaintiff himself admitted his surgery was to correct a congenital defect.  

In the end, Emilio’s zealous and highly skilled defense proved transcending. The jury, after three days of deliberations, returned a verdict of $2.32 million, substantially less than the plaintiff’s $16 million demand.