Kevin Joseph Abruzzese's Legal Cases (3)

Lawsuits and disputes

C.W. v. R.H.

Sep 19, 2024

OUTCOME: Fully Favorable Decision For the Plaintiff Prior to Trial

The Plaintiff sued for breach of fiduciary duty when the Defendant acting as Executor of their father's estate intentionally transferred the property owned by their father to herself contrary to the di ... rectives in their father's Last Will and Testament. The Defendant argued the Plaintiff's case was barred by the statute of limitations because he knew about the transfer over six years prior to the commencement of the action. Kevin J. Abruzzese, Esq., was successful in opposing this defense and achieving a fully successful outcome for the Plaintiff prior to trial.

Personal injury

Borsching v, Samaritan Village Inc.

Apr 10, 2012

OUTCOME: $117,500.00 Settlement

The Plaintiff lost his middle finger while cutting a piece of wood on a table saw at an inpatient rehabilitation facility owned by the Defendant. The theory of liability was based on the facility fail ... ing to provide the proper safety mechanisms on the table saw and failing to warn of the dangers of using the table saw without the safety mechanisms. The Defendant claimed the Plaintiff removed the safety mechanisms prior to his use and thus, was the sole cause of his injuries. There were no witnesses and the case hinged on the Plaintiff's testimony. Prior to trial the Plaintiff passed away from causes unrelated to his injury in this case. The Defendant offered $50,000 to settle. After extensive negotiation during a mediation the case settled for $117,500. The Plaintiff's damages were limited to past and future pain and suffering.

Foreclosure

Nationstar Mortgage LLC v. R.P. et al.

Jul 15, 0025

OUTCOME: Summary Judgment for the Plaintiff Denied

In Nationstar Mortgage LLC v. R.P., the Supreme Court of Nassau County denied the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in a residential foreclosure matter. Representing the defendant, Kevin J. Abruz ... zese, Esq. successfully opposed the motion by highlighting contradictions in the plaintiff’s affidavits regarding possession of the mortgage note—one claimed it was lost, another asserted possession, and a third confirmed it had been destroyed. The court found these inconsistencies created unresolved factual issues and held that the plaintiff failed to meet the evidentiary standard under UCC § 3-804, denying all requested relief.

Transform legal challenges into solutions.

Connect now to review your situation.

The Avvo Rating explained

The Avvo Rating explained