Thomas M. Bona, P.C.

Attorneys At Law

Michael Kestenbaum


University of Bridgeport School of Law, Bridgeport, Connecticut

      J.D., May 1986

Carroll v. Windridge


Summary judgment granted and reimbursement of defense costs


The plaintiff in Carroll slipped and fell on ice by a garbage dumpster the afternoon after an ice storm. The condominium’s contract with its snow contractor had a clause requiring the contractor to defend and indemnify the condominium. During the pendency of the action we moved against the snow contractor for summary judgment on the cross-claim for indemnification, won summary judgment, entered judgment and then negotiated an advantageous settlement for partial reimbursement of defense costs, the snow contractor taking over the condominium’s defense and sharing of the settlement with the plaintiff while the snow contractor’s appeal was pending.


Rudloff v. Woodland Pond


Summary judgment granted and affirmed by Appellate Division


The plaintiff in Rudloff slipped on ice at 6 a.m. the morning the day after a serious blizzard. Moving separately, the condominium and its snow contractor obtained summary judgment. On appeal the Second Department affirmed dismissal of the complaint holding that the condominium neither had notice of the condition nor did it create it. The Second Department further affirmed the lower court’s decision that simply by plowing and leaving some residual snow or ice behind the snow contractor was not negligent and not liable to the plaintiff and that the plaintiff had offered only speculation that a failure to sand or salt made the property less safe than before the snow was plowed. The plaintiff had tried to rely on a faulty affidavit of a meteorologist.


Romeo v. Pietsch Gardens 


Summary judgment granted and affirmed by Appellate Division


Romeo involved a land cooperative. The plaintiff claimed that the property line between two lots was marked in the wrong location to her detriment. She further claimed that by multiple actions the coop board discriminated against her, intimidated and disenfranchised her. During the pendency of the action the Court sua sponte sanctioned the plaintiff for failure to comply with multiple discovery orders by precluding her expert surveyor. Summary judgment was granted based upon application of the Business Judgment Rule. Motions to reargue were made and upon reargument both preclusion of the expert and summary judgment were reaffirmed. Plaintiff appealed to the Second Department which found that preclusion of the expert was an appropriate sanction and that the plaintiff had failed in the proof of the remainder of her multiple claims. A motion to the Second Department for reargument resulted in denial of the motion and a motion to the Court of Appeals for leave to appeal was denied as premature.