Goldberg Segalla partner Abraham D. Leybengrub and attorney Gnim K. Bazim obtained a pre‑discovery dismissal in a Manhattan trip‑and‑fall lawsuit after demonstrating through documentary evidence that our client – mistakenly named due to its similarity to another entity – had no ownership or presence at the accident location.

The plaintiff alleged that he was injured after tripping on a sidewalk abutting a property in Manhattan and, uncertain of who owned or maintained the premises, named multiple defendants, including our client. Early in the case, Abraham engaged in discussions with plaintiff’s counsel seeking a discontinuance, having already identified that the client had no connection to the sidewalk where the incident occurred. But opposing counsel declined, preferring to “see what discovery shows,” which would have prolonged the matter significantly.

Recognizing that courts generally hesitate to dismiss a defendant before depositions and document exchanges, we structured our approach around obtaining the necessary dispositive records from the city. We served targeted discovery demands that produced deeds and tenancy documents confirming that a different entity owned and controlled the premises. These documents made clear that our client’s property and operations were located elsewhere in the city and had no connection to the sidewalk defect alleged in the complaint. With this evidence in hand, Abraham and Gnim moved to dismiss, arguing that the documentary proof was sufficient to remove our client from the suit.

The court agreed and asked plaintiff’s counsel to consider discontinuing the matter while asking us to produce a witness for deposition to cast aside any doubts the plaintiff might have regarding the insured’s ownership or control of the premises. The court told plaintiff’s counsel that if she will not consent to the court’s proposal, the court is inclined to grant our motion. Plaintiff’s counsel agreed to the court’s proposal, and the action against our client was dismissed. As Abraham explained, early dismissal can be difficult to obtain because judges often want all parties deposed before deciding on such motions, but when the evidence presented demonstrates that ownership/control are likely nonexistent, courts are more open to an early resolution. Gnim, who helped in drafting the motion, emphasized that their success hinged on the clarity of the documents and the strategic timing of the filing.

Another factor in the favorable outcome was the team’s willingness to argue the motion in person rather than relying solely on written submissions. Abraham noted that live argument often gives the court a clearer understanding of the issues and can distinguish a motion from the “stack of thousands” awaiting review.

Ultimately, our methodical discovery approach and insistence on obtaining the right documentation saved our client considerable expenses. Avoiding depositions, recurring court conferences, and extensive paper discovery prevented what could have been years of litigation costs.