RESTAURANT OWNER SUED BY CUSTOMER ASSAULTED BY BOUNCERS WINS CASE

 

Court:  New York Supreme, BrooklynParties: McPhillips, plaintiff v. 9604 Restaurant Corp., defendantIn this case Mr. Calender’s client, who owns and operates a restaurant and bar in Brooklyn, was sued by Mr. McPhillipsafter the bar’s bouncers allegedly assaulted him at the entrance of the establishment, resulting in several fractures, loss of consciousness and brain injury. At trial, Mr. McPhillips testified, and his lawyer argued to the jury, that the owner of the bar was negligent in the training and supervision of the bouncers. He asked the jury for an award of over $3.1 million. However, relying on the testimony of his expert witness (a neurologist who, prior to trial, conducted a physical examination of Mr. McPhillips and examined the diagnostic films of his alleged brain injury),Mr. Calender successfully argued – among other facts – that the claim of brain injury was not supported by MRI or CT scans which were performed shortly after the incident. After 10 days of trial and over an hour of deliberations, the jury sided with Mr. Calender, resulting in an unlikely defense verdict for his client.
Court:  New York Supreme, Brooklyn
Parties: McPhillips, plaintiff v. 9604 Restaurant Corp., defendant
In this case Mr. Calender’s client, who owns and operates a restaurant and bar in Brooklyn, was sued by Mr. McPhillipsafter the bar’s bouncers allegedly assaulted him at the entrance of the establishment, resulting in several fractures, loss of consciousness and brain injury. At trial, Mr. McPhillips testified, and his lawyer argued to the jury, that the owner of the bar was negligent in the training and supervision of the bouncers. He asked the jury for an award of over $3.1 million. However, relying on the testimony of his expert witness (a neurologist who, prior to trial, conducted a physical examination of Mr. McPhillips and examined the diagnostic films of his alleged brain injury),Mr. Calender successfully argued – among other facts – that the claim of brain injury was not supported by MRI or CT scans which were performed shortly after the incident. After 10 days of trial and over an hour of deliberations, the jury sided with Mr. Calender, resulting in an unlikely defense verdict for his client.

Court:  New York Supreme, Brooklyn
Parties: McPhillips, plaintiff v. 9604 Restaurant Corp., defendant


In this case Mr. Calender’s client, who owns and operates a restaurant and bar in Brooklyn, was sued by Mr. McPhillips after the bar’s bouncers allegedly assaulted him at the entrance of the establishment, resulting in several fractures, loss of consciousness and brain injury. At trial, Mr. McPhillips testified, and his lawyer argued to the jury, that the owner of the bar was negligent in the training and supervision of the bouncers. He asked the jury for an award of over $3.1 million. However, relying on the testimony of his expert witness (a neurologist who, prior to trial, conducted a physical examination of Mr. McPhillips and examined the diagnostic films of his alleged brain injury), Mr. Calender successfully argued – among other facts – that the claim of brain injury was not supported by MRI or CT scans which were performed shortly after the incident. After 10 days of trial and over an hour of deliberations, the jury sided with Mr. Calender, resulting in an unlikely defense verdict for his client.



Get Help Today
Call for a FREE Consultation
Phone: 1-516-837-3758

Courtroom Successes


SPECIALIZES IN CRIMINAL DEFENSE, DEPORTATION DEFENSE, FORECLOSURE DEFENSE, PERSONAL INJURY CLAIMS, DIVORCES, AND ALL FAMILY COURT MATTERS