Call Us Today

Our Blog

Winter Glove Program for 2013-2014

November 15, 2013

We have once again launched our Winter Glove Program for the 2013- 2014 winter. It is getting cold and we understand there are children and adults alike who need gloves in the winter. Please stop by our office to pick up a pair for yourself or for anyone you know who may need a pair. We are located at 438 Main Street, on the 9th floor and have men’s, women’s, and children sizes available.

Request Your Free Consultation

Get the answers and support you need. Our friendly and experienced Buffalo personal injury lawyers will take the time to understand your case, explain your options, and guide you every step of the way.

Five gold stars representing a 5-star client rating for a Buffalo, NY law firm
“I think John is the tops! He always treated me like a mother. He took a while to get everything in order and he got it all done. He handled an impossible case, just let me put it that way.”
— Irene

Our Practice Areas

Read More Articles

Ohio Court Finds Employment Agreement Unenforceable That Requires Attorney to Return 95% of Fees

Should Cars be Allowed to Talk?

July 30, 2013

Should vehicles be allowed to communicate? The National Transportation Safety Board recommends cars and trucks talk to each other to prevent car crashes, truck accidents and bus accidents..

Read Blog
Ohio Court Finds Employment Agreement Unenforceable That Requires Attorney to Return 95% of Fees

Amusement Park Must Keep Patrons Safe

July 20, 2013

As an attorney who has handled many amusement park injury cases against parks like Six Flags and others, I am concerned when employees continue to fail to keep their patrons safe. An employee of the park knows the ride better than the customers and it is that persons

Read Blog
Ohio Court Finds Employment Agreement Unenforceable That Requires Attorney to Return 95% of Fees

Fall Was The Result Of Elevated Related Risk

July 5, 2013

In, NICOMETI v. THE VINEYARDS OF FREDONIA, LLC (June 2013) the Fourth Department held that contrary to the contention of defendants, the Supreme Court properly concluded that plaintiff’s fall was the result of an elevation-related risk for which Labor Law § 240 (1) provides protection.

Read Blog