Many bodily injuries can result in significant medical costs and financial burdens, as well as intangible losses. Fortunately, victims of others` negligence can recover damages through a civil lawsuit. If you have been injured in a car or plane accident, due to a faulty medication or any other accident due to negligence, the lawyers of Napoli Shkolnik, PLCC are ready to help you. On 22 January 2004, in reply to a letter from the applicant complaining about his dismissal, NKB`s lawyer wrote to the applicant in which he informed him that NKB would review his efforts to mitigate the damage: «Like any other plaintiff in a contractual action, you must mitigate the alleged losses and be prepared to prove it. Rest assured that statements will be made by every lawyer you contact for employment and by every company you have had a relationship with during or since your employment with [NKB]. In its action, Connolly puts forward four pleas in law. The first alleges that his dismissal was unlawful and was intended to take revenge for his refusal to be dragged into concealing the defendants; The second asserts that he is entitled to five per cent of certain fees and income (which appear to be linked to point 2.5 of the employment contract, which concerns premiums) and [*3] to a statement of account to determine the amount of damages; The third claims that the NKB`s January 22 letter was intended to be a «thinly veiled threat to impede his future ability to practise as a lawyer. [and was]. nothing less than blackmail»; [FN2] and the fourth alleged a breach of a fiduciary relationship and called for accountability. Accordingly, on the basis of the foregoing, it is ordered that the defendant`s application for dismissal by the defendant Naples and Berne (Application No 2) be granted only in so far as the part of the second plea seeking compensation and the fourth plea in law are rejected. in addition, it is ordered that the application for dismissal by the defendants Napoli, Kaiser & Bern, LLP, Napoli Bern, LLC and Gerald Kaiser (application No 3) should also be upheld only in so far as the [*8] part of the second plea, which seeks resolution, and the fourth plea in law are rejected.
It is also ordered that the plaintiff`s request to challenge the defendant`s various lawyers be dismissed. [Parts of opinion omitted for publication.] Footnote 1: It is clear from reading the Treaty that paragraph 3.1(f) contains a typographical error. Clause 3.1(f) of the Agreement states that termination of the Agreement must be «two (2) weeks or more in advance for the Law Firm at any time for any reason or no reason.» Contrary to the plaintiff`s allegations, as a counter-clause to paragraph 3.1(e) (which gave the plaintiff the right to terminate the contract for any reason or no reason), the parties clearly intended to read paragraph 3.1(f) as follows: «[a] period of two (2) weeks or more notice from the law firm to the lawyer at any time for any reason or no reason». Footnote 2: The plaintiff argues in his opposition that the third ground is economic coercion, while the respondents claim that it is extortion. Footnote 3: Code of Professional Responsibility DR 1-103(a) (22 NYCRR 1200.4[a]), «Disclosure of Information to Authorities,» states: Since the plaintiff has raised a legally identifiable cause of action, the action is not dismissed even if the plaintiff does not have just cause for wrongful dismissal (Horn v New York Times, 100 NY2d 85, 96 [2003]) or economic coercion (Bank Leumi Trust Co. of N.Y. v D`Evori Intl., 163 AD2d 26 [1st Dept 1990]). If the actions of individuals and companies result in environmental and personal damage, you are entitled to receive compensation for immeasurable losses as well as economic losses. Although this Court recognizes that Wieder should be a narrow exception to the doctrine of unlimited employment, the defendants` reasoning requires an illogical reading of Wieder.