Claims Administration
Harrington, Ocko & Monk attorneys handle a broad range of complex appellate matters in both Federal and State court. Our attorneys recognize that appellate practice requires unique skills that emphasize analytical ability, comprehensive research and persuasive writing skills. By application of these skills, and recognizing the procedural and substantive nuances of the different Federal and State appellate courts in which we practice, Harrington, Ocko & Monk has consistently succeeded in achieving successful results at the appellate level.
While some firms may be reluctant to handle complex appellate cases, Harrington, Ocko & Monk relishes the opportunity to handle difficult, challenging cases. Indeed, our attorneys are frequently called upon to provide guidance and counseling on potential appellate issues and to provide a second opinion in cases with novel legal and factual issues well in advance of the appellate stage. We also understand that taking frivolous appeals will not necessarily serve to advance the client's interest given cost and other constraints, and therefore we strive to candidly evaluate the chances of prevailing on a particular appeal, giving the client solid information to fairly evaluate whether to prosecute an appeal in a particular case.
Ancillary to our appellate practice is our ability to successfully apply for enlargements of time to appeal, thus affording our clients the ability to thoroughly grasp the pros and cons of pursuing an appeal and allowing for an informed decision to be made. We also have a record of success in obtaining stays of trial pending appeal, thus allowing for efficient and effective litigation.
Our appellate attorneys have recently handled significant appeals that have helped define and shape the law in New York State, including dual endorsement language interpretation within an insurance policy (HRH Construction Interiors v. Royal Surplus Lines Ins. Co., 16 A.D.3d 115), enforcement of lease provisions shielding against business interruption claims (Duane Reed v. 405 Lexington, LLC, 22 A.D.3d 108), prohibition of tailored, self-serving affidavits (Perez v. Bronx Park South Associates, 285 A.D.2d 402), the application of the doctrine of res judicata (Charles v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 254 A.D.2d 321), and penalties for failure to disclose evidence (DiDomenico v. C & S Aeromatik Supplies, Inc., 252 A.D.2d 41).