KIRSHENBAUM & KIRSHENBAUM secures $3,000,000 award.
Christopher Russo and the attorneys at Kirshenbaum & Kirshenbaum helped our client conclude a seven year battle arising out of serious injuries he sustained in a motor vehicle accident. Our client was a passenger in a car that was hit from behind while stopped at the bottom of a highway on-ramp. The other driver claimed that he did not realize the on-ramp was under construction and failed to notice that there was a stop sign at the end of the ramp. Mr. Russo tried the case before a Kent County jury. The trial was against companies that were responsible for the construction design changes to the on-ramp. Mr. Russo obtained a verdict from the jury in the amount of $1,160,755.48. After the trial, Mr. Russo filed various legal motions, which were granted by the Court and resulted an award to our clients, including pre-judgment interest, of $3,160,983.03.
KIRSHENBAUM & KIRSHENBAUM secures $300,000 settlement for dog assault.
Our client was in her own yard, holding her dog. A dog from the neighborhood became loose, and entered our client’s property. The two dogs lunged at each other, but no contact was made. Neither dog touched, nor did they touch our client. However, the turmoil knocked our client to the ground, causing serious injury. The insurance carrier representing the neighboring dog’s owner fought our client’s claim. They insisted that there was no contact, and that the neighboring dog did not cause the injury. The attorneys of Kirshenbaum & Kirshenbaum filed suit, and obtained a policy limits settlement of $300,000 for our client. Our client was not even required to make an appearance in court.
KIRSHENBAUM & KIRSHENBAUM secures $90,000 settlement for motorcycle victim.
A male client was riding on his motorcycle when an automobile cut directly in front of him. Our client swerved to avoid the car, subsequently losing control of the motorcycle and suffering serious injuries. The automobile and the motorcycle never touched. The automobile owner’s insurance company fought our claim, arguing our client was at fault for not controlling the motorcycle. The attorneys at Kirshenbaum & Kishenbaum, with many years of experience with motorcycle accidents, filed suit and were able to secure a very favorable $90,000 settlement for our appreciative client.
KIRSHENBAUM & KIRSHENBAUM secures $750,000 in truck collision.
A female client was injured when a tanker truck cut in front of the sedan in which she was a passenger, causing an accident. The truck owner’s insurance company tried to fight the value of our client’s claim. The attorneys at Kirshenbaum & Kirshenbaumimmediately filed suit. With help of expert witnesses, Kirshenbaum & Kirshenbaumpressed the insurance company, and demonstrated a strong case for trial. A settlement was quickly reached with the insurance company for $750,000, reliving our client’s fears, and enabling her to provide for all her needs
KIRSHENBAUM & KIRSHENBAUM secures $330,000 settlement for victim in one car collision.
Our 21 year old male client was a passenger in an automobile involved in a deadly accident. The driver lost control of the vehicle, leaving the road and hitting a tree. The driver did not survive, and all three passengers were seriously injured. Our client suffered life threatening internal injuries, including third degree lacerations of his kidney and liver. He also suffered extensive scarring to his body. Our client needed strong legal representation since his total claims exceeded the policy limits for the automobile involved in the accident. The attorneys at Kirshenbaum & Kirshenbaumguided him through a complex maze of insurance policies, securing a $330,000 settlement on his behalf.
KIRSHENBAUM & KIRSHENBAUM secures $155,000 settlement for dog bit victim.
A young boy went over his friends house to play. When they opened the door their dog lunged at him and bit him. The attorneys at Kishenbaum & Kirshenbaum were faced with a difficult task. Rhode Island law requires for a bite occurring on the owners premises that you prove that the dog had bitten before or that the owners of the knew or should have known the dog had dangerous propensities. There was no evidence that the dog had bitten anyone else. The attorneys fought for our client and obtained, what the client considered, a unbelievable settlement and never had to worry about college tuition again.
KIRSHENBAUM & KIRSHENBAUM secures $1,000,000 settlement in fire loss
A family's dream home was burned to the ground. They thought they were safe because they had plenty of insurance coverage. But like many other insurance companies, once they were put on notice of a claim, they denied it. The attorneys at Kirshenbaum & Kirshenbaum fought tirelessly secured a $1,000,000 settlement for their clients.
KIRSHENBAUM & KIRSHENBAUM secures $419,000 settlement in tractor trailer collision.
A young college student was going home and in the dark of night she was provided no warning that a flatbed tractor trailer was attempting to back out of a residential driveway - blocking the entire road. The attorneys at Kirshenbaum & Kirshenbaum had the experience and knowledge of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations and demonstrated the many errors committed by the driver. Because the attorneys at Kirshenbaum & Kirshenbaum demonstrated they were ready for trial, through mediation were able to obtain a settlement that far exceeded our client's expectations without her ever having to go to a deposition or trial.
KIRSHENBAUM & KIRSHENBAUM Confidential Settlement car collision
A young man was a passenger in a car involved in a multiple car collision. The defendant's insurance carrier refused to settle for it's policy limits of $25,000. The attorneys at Kirshenbaum & Kirshenbaum prepared the case and went to trial and obtained a $426,848.00 judgment. The parties reached a confidential settlement far beyond what our client ever imagined possible.
KIRSHENBAUM & KIRSHENBAUM secures $500,000 settlement in pedestrian car collision
Our client was attempting to cross the street. A driver not paying attention struck him sending him into the air. The attorneys at Kirshenbaum & Kirshenbaum were able to secure all the proper evidence, and demonstrate to the insurance company the incredible injuries suffered by our client. The attorneys were able to achieve a settlement that secured our client's future.
KIRSHENBAUM & KIRSHENBAUM secures CONFIDENTIAL SETTLEMENT in a medical negligence case.
Our client went in for surgery to her cervical spine and as a result of the surgeon causing an injury to vertebral artery she did not survive the surgery. The attorneys atKirshenbaum & Kirshenbaum represented her son and the estate and were able to reach a confidential settlement for the benefit of her son without him ever having to endure a day in court.
KIRSHENBAUM & KIRSHENBAUM IN THE LAW
RHODE ISLAND SUPREME COURT
The attorneys at KIRSHENBAUM & KIRSHENBAUM are ready willing and able to not only negotiate for our clients, we are prepared to try our cases before judges and juries and we are prepared to appeal our clients' cases to the Rhode Island Supreme Court if necessary. These are just a small sampling of the cases our firm has been involved:
Demelo v. Zompa, 844 A.2d 174 (RI 2004)
In this case, our firm successfully defended our client from a claim of common law marriage. After the dissolution of a romantic relationship, a former girlfriend brought an action against our client seeking to establish a common law marriage. Through said action, the woman sought to have the Court award her an ownership interest in the assets of our client. The gentleman’s interests were protected by this firm when our attorney’s successfully convinced the Court that the elements of a common law marriage had not been established. The woman’s complaint or divorce was appropriately dismissed as there was no evidence of a common law marriage.
Garrison v. Mulcahy, 636 A.2d 732 (RI 1993)
In this action, Kirshenbaum and Kirshenbaum represented a father who desperately wished to have his child remain in Rhode Island with him. The mother of the child petitioned the Court to remove the child from the father and move with the child out of State. Our attorneys successfully established that there were no compelling reasons for the Court to authorize having the child leave the State.
Quarto v. Quarto, 440 A.2d 737 (RI 1982)
Kirshenbaum and Kirshenbaum represented a husband in a divorce action; the divorce was granted and final judgment was entered. The wife thereafter attempted to vacate the entry of the final judgment claiming amongst other arguments that the proper procedure had not been followed. The Supreme Court found that there was appropriate notice and that husband’s counsel had followed appropriate procedure. The final decree of divorce was valid and was not overturned.
Moran v. Moran, 612 A.2d 26 (RI 1992)
Here, our attorneys were successfully able to present a case in which our client was awarded permanent alimony at the rate of several hundred dollars per week. Through extensive preparation and knowledge of the pertinent laws, this firm was able to apply the facts of this case to the laws of alimony and present a case to the Court in such a fashion that an award of permanent alimony was justified.
Glodis v. Glodis, 346 A.2d 123 (RI 1975)
In this action, our firm obtained a summary judgment on behalf of our client in the Superior Court for the collection of unpaid child support from her ex-husband. The ex-husband appealed, arguing that the Superior Court did not have the appropriate jurisdiction. Kirshenbaum and Kirshenbaum defeated this appeal by demonstrating to the Supreme Court that the ex-husband was erroneous in his contention that an action to collect child support was only cognizable in the Family Court.
Stephenson v. Stephenson, 811 A.2d 1138 (RI 2002)
Kirshenbaum and Kirshenbaum represented the husband in a divorce action. During the marriage, at the persistence of the wife, the husband added her name to a number of his banking and investment accounts that he had acquired prior to the marriage. In the divorce action, the trial Judge found that those accounts to which the husband added the wife’s name were marital. On appeal, this office victoriously argued that the husband’s property had not transmuted into marital property and established that the wife was added to the accounts as a matter of convenience. The marital estate, accordingly, was reduced by the amount contained in those accounts. The husband maintained his premarital property.
Kashmanian v. Kashmanian, 924 A.2d 2 (RI 2007)
In this case, our client was protected from contempt proceeding brought against him by his ex-wife. The ex-wife alleged that her ex-spouse was in arrears for support and alimony, while in rebuttal our client maintained that he had paid more than was required of him under the property settlement agreement. The parties were referred to mediation where an agreement was reached. The ex-wife continued to seek an award of attorney fees. After argument of our counsel, the Court found that there was no evidence that the ex-husband was in contempt and thus, there was no basis for any award of counsel fees. The wife appealed the decision but the Court refused her request for relief as the appropriate mechanism for review was a petition for writ of cert.
Giammarco v. Giammarco
Kirshenbaum and Kirshenbaum was able to achieve for our client an award of 65% of the marital estate, convincing the trial Judge that the wife was totally at fault for the breakdown of the marriage. The wife, on appeal, attempted to argue that she had not been allowed to subpoena certain documents and that she had wrongfully been denied the opportunity to present certain evidence in her defense. The Supreme Court rejected this argument and upheld the award of the trial Judge in favor of our client.
Brierly v. Brierly, 431 A.2d 410 (RI 1981)
Our office was able to obtain for our client a divorce from her husband on the grounds of extreme cruelty. Moreover, ample evidence was presented on the wife’s behalf to show that the husband was capable of earning more than the amount to which he testified; child support was therefore appropriately set at an amount based on his higher earning potential. Despite the husband’s arguments to the contrary, our firm demonstrated to the Supreme Court that the Family Court had the legal authority to place a lien on the husband’s equity interest in the home to secure the wife’s interest in the past and present support due and owing from the husband
Keidel v. Keidel, 383 A.2d 264 (RI 1978)
This office represented a wife throughout her action for divorce. The divorce was granted and the interlocutory decision of the Family Court ordered the partition of the real estate. Prior to the entry of Final Judgment of divorce, the husband unfortunately passed away. The heirs of the husband argued that the sale of the house should go forward and that they should be awarded the husband’s share. In rebuttal, our attorneys successfully argued that the death of the husband abated the divorce action and all incidental orders thereto. The Family Court no longer had the authority to order the wife to sell the real estate and her interest was protected from the husband’s heirs.
Hemenway v. Hemenway, 339 A.2d 247 (RI 1975)
Our office represented the mother of children, whose possession rights were interfered with by the children’s father. Certain orders were obtained by our office on the mother’s behalf, specifically finding the father in contempt for interfering with her possession rights. The father tried to appeal certain holdings of the Court. After hearing arguments from our counsel, the Supreme Court held that the father was not allowed to proceed with his appeals until he returned the children to the State of Rhode Island and purged himself of his contempt.
Furia v. Furia, 692 A.2d 327 (RI 1997)
In this case, our office represented the husband in a divorce action. The wife had a retirement pension of which she was fully vested, yet she continued to work so as to avoid pay-out of the pension. Our office convinced the Court that this was a purposeful tactic to avoid payment to the husband of his share of the pension. The Court ordered that even though the wife continued to work, she would have to pay to the Husband each month one-half the amount she would have received if she had retired when she was eligible.
