David H. Perecman
Recognized in:Personal Injury Litigation - Plaintiffs
Law School:Brooklyn Law School
Languages:English, Polish, Russian, Span...
Locations:500 North Broadway, Suite 123Jericho, NY 11753
250 West 57th Street, Suite 401New York, NY 10107
- Brooklyn Law School, J.D., graduated 1978
- State University of New York at Albany, BS, graduated 1975
- New York, New York State Bar Association
- New York State Trial Lawyers Association - Board Memeber/ Chairman Labor Law Committee
Recognized in The Best Lawyers in America for work in:
- Personal Injury Litigation - Plaintiffs
- Listed in Best Lawyers 2008-2013
- U.S. News & World Report for 2011-2012 selected my firm as one of the Top 20 Law firms in New York City , Tier 2, in the field of Personal injury-Plaintiff’s litigation
- Super Lawyers 2007-2013, Multi Million dollars Advocates Forum, Listed in New York Law Journal's Book of Lists and Top Verdicts for multiple years, Law Dragon Leading Plaintiff Lawyers 2007, National Law Journal's Hall of Fame 2008, 2011-2012 U.S. News
- Firm listed as among top twenty personal injury firms in NYC, tier 3, by U.S.News and World Reports Best Law Firms
Attorney Case History
Ranieri v. Holt Construction et ano
After the verdict we were confronted with several months of video tape of the client taken by the Defendants which showed the client in excellent physical condition on the beach.
We were able to demonstrate that these very videos showed a few instances which were consistent with his problems. Thus, the judge refused to set aside the verdict.
We were able to then settle the matter for close to $8,000,000.00
Tonaj v. ABC Carpet et al
What made the case most outstanding to my view was the fact that a co worker who also fell along with him, while sustaining serious injuries also, who was represented
by a different lawyer at trial was only awarded $250,000.00 in future damages while my client was awarded $6,000.000.00.
This takes on particular significance since they were both represented by the other lawyer throughout almost all the
proceedings except for trial and their testifying experts and physicians were the same.
Dounias v. Town of Marlborough
The vehicle had a very limited insurance policy making a successful result and trial against the Town essential. Some witnesses claimed both workers were at fault for running
across the street without looking.
After a one month long trial involving over 25 witnesses and almost 100 exhibits I was able to settle my clients case for $4,525,000.00 plus waiver of a $400,000.00
workers compensation lien. This trial was in a conservative jurisdiction where a lawsuit against the Town, under these circumstances, where the driver was the most obvious
culprit, would be viewed skeptically.
What made this result especially noteworthy was that the jurisdiction is one where large verdicts are highly unusual and because our client's settlement, despite serious
injuries to both clients, was triple that of the other workers settlement.
Olszewski v. Park Terrace Gardens
worker had not used his safety harness and lifeline although his co-worker, also on the scaffold, was saved by having used it. Despite the fact that he was what the Defendants referred
to as an illegal alien and the fact that he had not used his safety devices we prevailed.
Kempisty v. 246 Spring Street, LLC
the tip of a crane boom. As the crane operator lifted the block, it moved sideways catching his leg between it and another block. The trial court, on its own, dismissed
the part of the case that relied on Labor Law 240(1) and ruled that the Plaintiff would have to go to trial to succeed in proving violations of other worker safety rules.
Undaunted by this ruling, our firm appealed the decision and not only won reinstatement of this claim but was granted summary judgment in Plaintiff's favor. The
Appellate Division, First Department, in a well reasoned decision, agreed that the block could only have moved due to gravity and stated that: “The elevation
differential cannot be considered de minimis when the weight of the object being hoisted is capable of generating an extreme amount of force, even though it only
traveled a short distance". Highly respected lawyers practicing in the field of construction accidents have commented on the unique nature of the arguments made
by our firm and the court’s decision and that it will keep the avenues available for construction workers to be fairly compensated when they are injured. We are
particularly proud of this court decision because it was unusual and unexpected.