Svitlana Astakhova joined Russo & Gould LLP after gaining invaluable experience on the plaintiff's side of insurance litigation working for a high-volume personal injury firm in Brooklyn. Her experience includes all aspects of litigation, including motion practice, hearings, depositions, court appearances, and mediations.
Svitlana obtained her first law license in Ukraine in 2009, where she successfully practiced commercial litigation for over five years. After moving to the US, she pursued her passion for litigation by obtaining an LLM. Svitlana is licensed to practice in New York.
In her spare time Svitlana photographs city landscapes. She especially appreciates capturing a good winter storm or a blooming cherry blossom season.
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.
On January 3, 2023, Marie Castronuovo''s motion for summary judgment was granted on behalf of our clients in the case of Brian Crosby v. AJA Turnpike et al. Ms. Castronuovo moved for a dismissal of plaintiff''s Labor Law 200, 240 and 241 claims against various Sonic entities. Plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing that there was an agency relationship between the Sonic entities and the owner of the property and the general contractor on the job. Judge Frank Nervo agreed with Ms. Castronuovo''s argument that no agency relationship existed and that the Sonic entities were not subject to the Labor Law.
25 Years and Counting - Reflecting on a Wonderful Anniversary Year What a fantastic 25th year we had at Russo & Gould! Thank you to our clients and friends for your continued support these 25 years. We enjoyed a busy year; below are some highlights that we wanted to share.