Alexandra focuses her practice on insurance defense litigation with an emphasis on personal injury actions that include motor vehicle accidents, product liability matters and property damage cases. She has written and argued numerous successful appeals in the 1st and 2nd Departments.
Alexandra has presented continuing legal education courses for insurance carriers on issues such as defending New York's "serious injury" cases as well as the current law regarding bad faith litigation. She also provides assistance to junior associates and paralegals regarding New York Practice and Procedure.
In addition, Alexandra has been integral to the firm drafting several coverage opinions related to both New York and New Jersey law, as well as multiple appeals.
Congratulations to Senior Associate Alexandra Alvarez for winning Motions for Summary Judgment for firm client, Con Edison and others. Alexandra appeared for oral argument before Justice Katherine Levine of the Supreme Court, 2nd Judicial District on September 15. She successfully argued the motions for ConEd, Verizon, Five Star Electric Corp. and the MTA/NYCTA.
On January 9, 2023, Marie Castronuovo''s motion for summary judgment was granted on behalf of our client in the case of Laura Marks v. Lessings, Inc. This case involved a plaintiff who fell down exterior steps at Whitby Castle, claiming the steps were visually confusing. To establish that the steps were not visually confusing Ms Castronuovo presented the Court with the photos of the steps marked at plaintiff''s deposition which depicted various shades of gray on each step, and a darker landing as well as a white framed threshold. She also argued that plaintiff''s expert failed to identify a Building Code violation and admitted that the steps were well lit. Plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing that the steps were an optical illusion and required a mid-handrail. This was rebutted by Ms. Castronuovo who argued that plaintiff''s expert''s opinion only provided suggestions for making the steps safer and did not identify any Building Code requiring a mid-handrail. She further cited to plaintiff''s testimony that she was looking straight ahead as she exited the building, instead of down at the staircase.