News

Defamation Lawsuit by accused Misogynistic Bully Dismissed

posted Apr 24, 2022, 7:02 AM by Michael Treybich   [ updated May 9, 2022, 6:10 AM ]

October 2018

During a contested election for Commissioner of Elections, the (now former) Democratic Commissioner of the Dutchess County Board of Elections sued the County Chair, a former employee of the Board of Elections, and 100 unknown "John and Jane Does" identified as various members of the Dutchess County Democratic Committee for over $2 million, alleging that they defamed him by calling him a "bully" and a "misogynist".

The Supreme Court granted our motion to dismiss, finding that the alleged defamatory language, that the plaintiff was a "bully" and a "misogynist" was not actionable as an opinion.

Prior results do not guarantee future outcomes.

Mortgage Foreclosure Defense

posted Jul 11, 2019, 9:15 AM by Michael Treybich   [ updated Apr 24, 2022, 6:49 AM ]

July 2019

Due to the failure to follow proper procedures by the bank, Treybich Law, P.C. was able to obtain an order discharging its clients' mortgage and declaring that the note is unenforceable.

Based on a 2009 default, the prior holder of the loan started a foreclosure action which was eventually dismissed (in 2018) at the request of the bank's attorneys because they couldn't prove that the bank served a required notice.
In the interim, the loan had been sold to another company, which began a new foreclosure action in 2018. Unfortunately for the new holder of the loan, the statute of limitations for a mortgage accrues (begins to run) from the date of acceleration of the loan (2009 when the bank filed the first foreclosure action) and expired six years later - in 2015 - so when the new action was filed in 2018, it was untimely.

As always, prior results cannot and do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Insurance Coverage

posted May 6, 2018, 7:25 AM by Michael Treybich   [ updated Apr 24, 2022, 6:51 AM ]

May, 2018

My client, a family-owned Pharmacy in Port Jervis, NY was sued by one of its customers, who claimed that he slipped, fell and was injured on the sidewalk in front of the business.

In and of itself, that does not make this particular case noteworthy, nor is it when my participation began, but rather, after my client timely tendered the claim to its insurance carrier, the insurer disclaimed coverage.

The insurance broker had made a mistake when they placed my client into a “claims made” insurance policy, instead of an “occurrence based” insurance policy. Usually, that kind of mistake is not actionable, but it became something more because at the time the policy was being shopped for, the insurance broker lied to my client when they wrote that they were placing them into an occurrence based policy.

A claims based policy, which is usually less expensive, provides insurance only if the claim is made (i.e., filing of the lawsuit) during the policy period, or during the tail which may be purchased separately. This is important, because the typical insurance policy is one year, while the statute of limitations for negligence (any slip and fall) is three years from the injury.

An occurrence based policy provides insurance if the incident which is the basis for the claim occurs during the policy period.

In short, my client had no insurance for this slip and fall because the broker had placed them with a different type of policy than what they had told the client.

Treybich Law, P.C. answered the slip and fall plaintiff’s complaint, and after demanding that the insurance broker defend my client, we engaged in negotiations with the attorneys for the insurance broker.

We were able to settle with both the slip and fall plaintiff and with the insurance broker by having the insurance broker pay off the slip and fall plaintiff and my client’s attorney’s fees.

As always, prior results cannot and do not guarantee a similar outcome.


1-3 of 3