Robert A. Suarez

Robert A. Suarez Photo
Direct: 646.585.7121
Cell: 917.513.6071
New York
1500 Broadway, 2401
New York, NY 10036
T: 929.342.6000
F: 929.342.6001
  • The New York Appellate Division, First Department, reversed the trial court’s increase change in the percentage of the plaintiff’s comparative fault and almost $1.8M increase to the damages awarded to the plaintiff by a jury following trial. The jury previously found the plaintiff’s comparative fault was greater than our client and found the plaintiff's damages totaled $125,000, rejecting the plaintiff’s contention that, besides a broken elbow, she injured her back which required back surgery as the result of the pedestrian/auto accident.  We appealed the grant of the post-trial motion to the New York Appellate Division, First Department. The First Department unanimously reversed the trial judge's post-trial order, reinstating the jury's verdict.

  • Motion granted by the New York Court to dismiss an action against a New Jersey-based hotel, finding that the New Jersey hotel lacked sufficient contacts with New York to confer personal jurisdiction over it in this personal injury action filed by an employee of a third-party event planner.

  • Co-Counsel with a lawyer from another firm, representing a shipping company. Judge Alison J. Nathan of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York entered judgment in favor of the shipping company and its vessel agent on a terminal operator’s breach of contract claims seeking demurrage and a termination fee, for which the terminal operator sought $14,000,000.00 in damages. The shipping company and vessel agent also prevailed on their counterclaim for conversion of equipment against the terminal operator, resulting in an award of over $1,000,000.00 for the shipping company and vessel agent.

  • Successfully secured a dismissal in favor of our client, a world renowned NYC  art museum, sued by an elderly patron who fell on the property and sustained serious fractures resulting in permanent limitations.  In dismissing the case, the court agreed that the property complied with applicable building codes and was not inherently dangerous.

back to top