(877) 394-8497

Cases

Representative reported decisions involving cases handled by attorneys with The Wolford Law Firm

  • Town of Geneva v. City of Geneva, 63 A.D.3d 1544 (4th Dep't 2009).
The firm successfully obtained reversal of the trial court's dismissal of the complaint in this breach of contract claim involving two government entities related to inter-municipal sewer services.
  • EEOC v. Nichols Gas & Oil and Townsend Oil, 256 F.R.D. 114, 2009 WL 603195 (W.D.N.Y. 2009) (Payson, J.).
The EEOC commenced this lawsuit on behalf of claimants alleging that employer and purported successor had subjected female employees to conduct in violation of Title VII. Defending the alleged successor employer, the firm successfully moved to obtain disclosure of claimants' medical records to the extent they possibly related to emotional distress during periods of employment.
  • Guerrieri v. Town of Geneva, 2009 WL 349287 (W.D.N.Y. 2009) (Siragusa, J.).
This lawsuit involved First Amendment retaliation claims under 42 U.S.C. §1983 and sexual harassment claims under Title VII. The firm successfully obtained summary judgment in favor of its municipal client against the former Town Clerk.
  • Nixon Peabody LLP v. de Senilhes, Valsamdidis, Amsallem, Jonath, Flaicher Associés, 20 Misc.3d 1145(a), 873 N.Y.S.2d 235 (Monroe Co. Sup. Ct. 2008) (Fisher, J.).
In this dispute between two law firms, the firm successfully obtained summary judgment on behalf of the plaintiff with the Court holding that the non-solicitation agreement entered into by the parties was unenforceable under New York law as it was against public policy. The Court also dismissed aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty claims and tortious interference with contract relations claims.
  • Birnbaum v. Rohm Services Corp. et al., 45 A.D.3d 1367, 844 N.Y.S.2d 921 (4th Dep't 2007).
  • Birnbaum v. Rohm Services Corp. et al., Monroe Co. Index No. 2001/12235, reported at www.courts.state.ny.us/courts/comdiv/7thdistrict_decisions.shtml (December 4, 2006) (Fisher, J.).
The firm successfully represented the defendants in this derivative shareholders litigation involving various nursing homes. After successfully obtaining summary judgment in favor of the firm’s clients and defending that decision on appeal, the firm obtained an award of attorneys' fees in its clients' favor.
  • HSBC Bank USA v. Bond, Schoeneck & King, PLLC et al., 16 Misc.3d 813, 838 N.Y.S.2d 419 (Erie Co. S. Ct. 2007) (Curran, J.), modified, 55 A.D.3d 1426, 866 N.Y.S.2d 469 (4th Dep't 2008).
The firm successfully represented a law firm defendant and obtained a dismissal of various ERISA, malpractice and indemnification/contribution claims brought by controlling shareholders who sold their stock in their corporation's employee stock option plan (ESOP).
  • The Plastic Surgery Group of Rochester, LLC v. Evangelisti, M.D., 39 A.D.3d 1266, 832 N.Y.S.2d 840 (4th Dep't 2007).
  • The Plastic Surgery Group of Rochester, LLC v. Evangelisti, M.D., 39 A.D.3d 1265, 832 N.Y.S.2d 840 (4th Dep't 2007).
  • The Plastic Surgery Group of Rochester, LLC v. Evangelisti, M.D., 2005 WL 6134446, Monroe Co. Index No. 2005/04911, reported at www.courts.state.ny.us/courts/comdiv/7thdistrict_decisions.shtml (September 5, 2006) (Fisher, J.).
This litigation involved disputes arising from one physician's departure from a medical practice, including various breach of contract claims involving a Limited Liability Company agreement. The firm successfully defended an appeal involving various discovery and privilege issues that had been resolved in favor of the firm's client, including a finding that the opposing party had waived the attorney-client privilege.
  • Torvec, Inc., et al. v. CXO on the Go of Delaware, LLC, et al., 38 A.D.3d 1175, 831 N.Y.S.2d 800 (4th Dep't 2007).
The firm obtained a reversal of partial summary judgment granted against its client, the plaintiff, in this breach of contract and declaratory judgment action, successfully advancing its position that contractual provisions requiring directors of a corporation to select and maintain certain individuals as corporate officers were void under New York's Business Corporation Law.
  • Eastman Kodak Company v. Camarata et al., 2006 WL 3538944 (W.D.N.Y. 2006) (Larimer, J.).
  • Eastman Kodak Company v. Camarata et al., 238 F.R.D. 372 (W.D.N.Y. 2006) (Payson, J.).
In this litigation involving claims brought by the firm on behalf of the corporate plaintiff pursuant to the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act or "RICO," the firm successfully defended against a motion to dismiss brought by one defendant, and also successfully defended against a motion to quash subpoenas seeking personal bank records of individual defendants.
  • Cary v. TIAA-CREF, 2006 WL 4070768 (W.D.N.Y. 2006) (Siragusa, J.).
The firm successfully defeated the plaintiff's motion to remand the action to State court, arguing on behalf of the interpleaded defendant that the lawsuit involved federal questions under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act or "ERISA."
  • Schaefer v. Town of Victor, et al., 457 F.3d 188 (2d Cir. 2006).
This case involves claims against the firm’s municipal client under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act or "CERCLA." The firm obtained dismissal of the claims and successfully defended that dismissal on appeal to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Plaintiff ultimately commenced the dismissed state law claims in State Court, which were dismissed by the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Fisher, J.), and that decision is currently on appeal before the Appellate Division, Fourth Department.
  • Piazza v. Corning Inc., 421 F. Supp.2d 575 (W.D.N.Y. 2005) (Siragusa, J.).
The firm successfully defended its corporate client in this action brought pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act or "ERISA," obtaining summary judgment in its client's favor.
  • Faggiano v. Eastman Kodak Company, 378 F. Supp.2d 292 (W.D.N.Y. 2005) (Siragusa, J.).
This litigation involved claims of employment discrimination and retaliation against the firm's corporate client. The District Court granted the firm’s motion for summary judgment in favor of the corporate defendant.
  • Chinello v. Nixon, Hargrave, Devans & Doyle, LLP, 15 A.D.3d 894, 788 N.Y.S.2d 750 (4th Dep't 2005).
The firm successfully defended on appeal the grant of summary judgment dismissing a complaint brought by the Estate of the beneficiary of a Trust alleging legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty.
  • Ulico Casualty Co. v. Clover Capital Management, Inc., 335 F.Supp.2d 335 (N.D.N.Y. 2004) (Munson, J.).
Following a Bench Trial, the Court dismissed imprudent investment claims against the firm's client asserted under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act or "ERISA."
  • Douglas S. Gates, as Permanent Receiver of The Genesee Hosp. v. Arreaza, et al., 3 Misc.3d 1105(A), 787 N.Y.S.2d 677, 2004 WL 1118589 (Monroe Co. S Ct. 2004) (Stander, J.).
In this lawsuit related to a hospital’s dissolution involving physicians' claims to the proceeds in their retirement funds, the Court determined that the client physician was entitled to priority in the disbursement of assets of the hospital.
  • Sozio v. Exhibitgroup/Giltspur, a Div. of Viad Corp., 309 A.D.2d 1290, 765 N.Y.S.2d 393 (4th Dep't 2003).
The firm successfully defended an appeal from a grant of summary judgment in favor of its client in this breach of contract action arising from the sale of a business and subsequent employment.
  • Manitou Sand & Gravel Co. v. Town of Ogden et al., 295 A.D.2d 907, 743 N.Y.S.2d 760 (4th Dep't 2002), lv. to appeal denied, 98 N.Y.2d 753, 751 N.Y.S.2d 842 (2002).
The Appellate Court affirmed dismissal of this lawsuit against client law firm being sued for legal malpractice, and the client successfully obtained reimbursement of its legal fees due to the plaintiff's frivolous conduct.
  • Lizardo v. Denny's, Inc. et al., 270 F.3d 94 (2d Cir. 2001).
In this civil rights lawsuit involving allegations by Syracuse University students that they had been denied service at a Denny’s restaurant, the Second Circuit affirmed the grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant client.
  • Eid v. Park Ridge Hosp. et al., 289 A.D.2d 938, 734 N.Y.S.2d 522 (4th Dep't 2001).
The Court affirmed the grant of summary judgment in favor of client defendant in lawsuit brought by plaintiff physician who claimed she had been wrongfully excluded from a physicians' group that entered into an exclusive contract with hospital.
  • Baliva v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. et al., 286 A.D.2d 953, 730 N.Y.S.2d 655 (4th Dep't 2001).
The Appellate Court affirmed the grant of summary judgment in client supervisor's favor dismissing lawsuit involving alleged sexual harassment and intentional infliction of emotional