Eric N. Bailey

Eric has over three decades of experience in the defense of catastrophic, high-exposure, and otherwise complex legal matters throughout the entire State of New York.  He has extensive experience defending property owners and general contractors, from individuals to multinational corporations, as well as subcontractors, in construction site accident actions implicating the New York Labor Law.   His experience in defense of toxic tort claims ranges from mold and lead claims against building owners to the defense of manufacturers and general contractors, as well as their insurers, in asbestos and aqueous film-forming foam cases.

Eric’s experience in on-premises injury cases ranges from sidewalk trip-and-falls to products implicated in major building fires.  He has also defended many clients in property damage and legal malpractice cases.

Eric is an experienced appellate attorney, having briefed and argued dozens of cases throughout the Appellate Divisions in New York State.  He also has extensive experience in insurance coverage matters, from the rendering of coverage opinions and disclaimers through litigation of coverage claims.

Eric handles cases from inception through appeals.  His skills in investigation, together with his creativity and persistence, result in the efficient and cost-effective disposition of claims made against his clients.  He seeks resolution through early action on risk transfer strategies and timely motion practice.  He is an accomplished negotiator and has resolved numerous cases through alternate dispute resolution, including mediation and arbitration.

Eric provides guidance to the associates at his firm and holds discussion groups on a wide range of legal issues.

Eric is a graduate of the University of Rochester with degrees in Economics and Political Science.  He received his Juris Doctorate from Hofstra University School of Law where he was an Editor of the Hofstra Property Law Journal.

After 10 years of coaching youth baseball and basketball, from local teams and CYO teams through travel teams, and in tournaments in multiple states, Eric now spends much of his free time bowling, writing, and traveling.

• New York State Bar

Representative Cases with Published Decisions:

Allen v. Consolidated Edison et al.   Ms. Allen was a lifelong carrier of the Huntington’s Disease gene with a two percent chance of the disease actually manifesting.  Yet the disease did manifest, allegedly due to exposure to natural gas and carbon monoxide in her apartment over a period of years.  Following nearly eighty hours of Frye hearing testimony from five experts, Mr. Bailey convinced both the trial and appellate courts that plaintiffs’ experts were unable to establish either genuine causation or specific causation through generally accepted scientific techniques.  As a result, summary judgment was granted to his client by the Supreme Court, and affirmed by Appellate Court, and the New York Court of Appeals.

Jagdeo v, Novogratz, et al.   In this New York County case, plaintiff was allegedly injured when he was struck by a falling object while performing renovation of a multi-story condominium unit.  Plaintiff appealed the dismissal of his action against the unit owners and the condominium board.  Mr. Bailey responded to the appeal on behalf of both.  He successfully argued the absence of the condominium’s responsibility for the ongoing construction.  Additionally, he successfully argued against the admissibility of plaintiff’s purported evidence of the unit owners’ supervision and control of the ongoing work, entitling them to dismissal of the claims against them based upon the homeowner’s exemption to Labor Law 240(1) and 241(6).

Villa v. East 58^th Realty LLC  Plaintiff slipped and fell from the rim of a bathtub while installing wall tiles.  Mr. Bailey elicited testimony that one of plaintiff’s feet was still on the ground at the moment of the accident and that he could not state with any certainty that water or other foreign substance caused the rim of the tub to be slippery.  At both the trial and appellate levels, the courts agreed with Mr. Bailey that plaintiff’s accident did not arise from the type of elevated hazard to which New York Labor Law 240(1) applies.  The Court further agreed that, given plaintiff’s inability to reasonably identify the substance that caused him to slip, those portions of plaintiff’s action against Mr. Bailey’s client based upon Labor Law 200, Labor Law 241(6) and common law negligence had to be dismissed.

Penny v. Suffolk County  Plaintiff, a high school track coach, claimed to have tripped over a pile of starting blocks, propelling him headfirst into a wall.  As a result, he was rendered a paraplegic with limited use of his upper extremities.  The New York State High School Athletic Association, a quasi-governmental entity, asserted that it was entitled to dismissal of the action as against it, as it did not own, occupy, or control the facility where the accident occurred.  Mr. Bailey’s client, Suffolk County, owned and controlled the facility.  Mr. Bailey procured and produced evidence that that members of the Association were onsite and were involved in moving track equipment onto and off from the track.  As a result, the trial and appellate courts agreed with Mr. Bailey that there were triable issues of fact as to whether someone under the Association’s control created the condition claimed to have caused plaintiff’s accident or had constructive notice of it and denied dismissal of the complaint and cross-claims against the Association.

Atashi v. Fred-Doug 117 LLC  Plaintiff was a security guard on the premises and, during a Fourth of July weekend, was the sole person working on the premises at the time of his accident.  Plaintiff tripped and fell over a dolly that tenants were permitted to use, which had been left in a corridor.  Plaintiff had been in that corridor five hours earlier and did not see any objects on the floor.  The appellate court agreed with Mr. Bailey that, as plaintiff was the sole worker on the premises, plaintiff’s own testimony that he did not see the dolly at the accident location five hours earlier was dispositive of the fact that his client did not create the claimed condition and lacked actual or constructive notice of same.

Meredith v. Siben & Siben, LLP  Ms. Meredith’s personal injury action was dismissed by the Court due to willful default immediately prior to trial by a law firm that Siben & Siben retained for her representation.  The evidence showed that Siben & Siben had no further contact with the case following the substitution of counsel, with all work from the filing of the case to jury selection performed by the other firm.  The trial and appellate courts agreed with Mr. Bailey that his client’s representation of plaintiff terminated when the other firm substituted in as Ms. Meredith’s counsel, such that plaintiff’s action was time-barred against his client.