Verdicts and Settlements
Note: Due to privacy issues, attorney-client privilege and confidentiality agreements, the Law Office of Frances Nicotra, Esq. makes limited disclosure regarding the cases listed below.
State vs. HA, represented defendant in domestic violence restraining order violation. After trial the Court found defendant not guilty after finding reasonable doubt as to whether the State served the underlying restraining order on defendant.
LK vs. QM, et als., represented Plaintiff in an automobile accident personal injury arbitration. The arbitrator awarded Plaintiff substantial damages. Although Plaintiff was unable to treat for her injuries on account of an intervening cancer diagnosis, the arbitrator based the award in part upon her pain and suffering endured while treating for the cancer that pre-empted treatment for her injuries from the accident.
JF vs. IMCC, monetary resolution for Plaintiff employee in a disability employment discrimination case, even where mediator underscored employer’s claims of insubordination as problematic to employee’s case.
J.P.D. vs. L.P.D: Frances Nicotra, Esq. represented the Wife for a divorce action. Husband was seeking to divorce Wife, obtain 100% title to the marital property and avoid paying child support for a child he was supporting that was not the biological child of the Husband or the Wife. Resolved: Wife retained 100% title to the marital property, Husband ordered to pay Wife’s legal fees on post judgment application, Husband ordered to pay child support for the non-biological child he was raising during the marriage and Husband ordered to supervised visitation with the children and parenting classes.
R.P. vs. L.B.: Frances Nicotra, Esq. represented the Father of the child. Mother of child was withholding the child from the Father and not producing the child for parenting time. Resolved: Parenting Time schedule clearly specified, Mother to drop child off for set parenting time at the local police station, Father given access to school and medical records and Father given daily telephone contact with the child at a specified time.
Frances Nicotra, Esq., In re J.J. and G.J.: Frances Nicotra, Esq. represented both parents of the children who were removed from the home by the Division of Youth and Family Services after the division suspected neglect and abandonment. Resolved: Both children were immediately returned home to the parents.
State vs. B.R.: Frances Nicotra, Esq. represented man accused of violating a domestic violence restraining order. Resolved: man found not guilty where the alleged victim was going to the man’s house to drop off their child for parenting time and stay to socialize with the man’s mother.
State vs. M.R.: Frances Nicotra, Esq. represented man accused of violating a domestic violence restraining order. Resolved: man found not guilty where the alleged victim’s son obtained the restraining order on his mother’s behalf after she suffered a stroke and was hospitalized in a nursing care facility and his mother still wanted to see the man.
A.E. vs. B.C.: High-dollar settlement obtained on behalf of Plaintiff, an employee of 32 years employee, who sued employer for discriminating against him on the basis of disability. Where the Plaintiff had an alcohol related illness that he sought treatment for with a facility sponsored by the company and the facility released him without follow up care, Plaintiff was able to show that his termination after suffering a relapse was actionable.
N.R. vs. D.M: High dollar settlement obtained on behalf of Plaintiff, both an employee of a real estate management company and a tenant, who filed suit for sexual harassment and employment/housing discrimination.
EDCUC vs. GDA: Resolution on behalf of prominent non-profit housing corporation against the contractor/builder for breach of contract, breach of warranty, faulty roof installation and improper condominium conversion.
Premier Capital Inc. vs. R.W.: Verdict in favor of client who was sued by a debt collector to collect on a guaranteed student loan. Held: debt collector was unable to prove that it had all the rights of a federal guarantor and it failed to establish that client breached a contract to repay her student loans.