Steel v. State of New York, 11 A.D.3d 673 and 307 A.D.2d 919:     As a result of these appeals, the estate of a 34-year-old mother of two was permitted to sue the State of New York for her rape and murder at the hands of a violent felon who had been released from prison some 13 years too soon as a result of a clerical error. After obtaining a judgment of $5.5 million, the case was settled on appeal for $3.75 million.

D’Alessandro v. New York City Transit Authority, 83 N.Y.2d 891:     After a dismissal of plaintiff’s case in the trial court and Appellate Division, on the grounds that her Notice of Claim lacked sufficient detail, Mr. DiJoseph won a reversal in the New York Court of Appeals and the plaintiff’s claim was reinstated resulting in a settlement in her favor.

Ciano v. Sauve, 42 A.D.3d 556:     After trial, plaintiff was awarded $350,000 in damages for past and future pain and suffering due to painful foot fractures he suffered in a motor vehicle accident. On appeal, Mr. DiJoseph was successful in having the Appellate Division increase the total award to $725,000, an increase of 107%.

Johnson v. Johnson Chemical Co., Inc., 183 A.D.2d 64:     In this products liability action wherein plaintiff was injured by an exploding can of insecticide, defendant chemical company argued that the case should be dismissed because the explosion was caused by plaintiff’s misuse of the product as well as because plaintiff failed to read the warnings on the can. On appeal, Mr. DiJoseph successfully argued that the manner in which the product was used constituted a “foreseeable misuse” and, thus, presented a question of fact for a jury to resolve. In addition, the Appellate Division agreed that the intensity, prominence, and adequacy of the warnings were issues that precluded a dismissal simply because the plaintiff did not read them before using the product.

Pimental v. City of New York,246 A.D.2d 467:     When the City of New York failed to comply with numerous discovery demands, plaintiff moved to strike the City’s answer in the case. This very serious penalty was denied by the trial court. On appeal, however, the Appellate Division found the City’s actions to be willful and, as a result, the trial court was reversed and the City’s answer was stricken.