LAW OFFICE OF MARIAN POLOVY
 
 

DEDICATED TO THE PURSUIT OF EXCELLENCE
  

LAW OFFICES OF
MARIAN POLOVY
__________________________________________________________

192 LEXINGTON AVENUE
SUITE 903
NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10016
(212) 696-0133



This book contains information

about our firm, our people,

and our principles to friends,

clients and others who have asked.



I

CONTENTS

ON THE FIRMíS SUCCESSFUL TRACK RECORD

At Trial

Behind the scenes



II

ON THE CHARACTER OF THE FIRM


During the past 21 years in my own law firm, and prior thereto during my association with major New York litigation defense firms, I have tried a good number of varied and complex cases towards a successful resolution, defense negligence, product liability, defense medical malpractice, dental and podiatry, professional liability and employment law, auto, worker's compensation, general liability and general civil litigation. The following are a brief sampling of some of the more newsworthy cases that I have litigated towards a successful resolution.

HERMAN v. REZA:

Supreme Court, New York County

Dr. Robert Reza is the renown pulmonologist in Long Island, who was convicted of second degree murder for the death of his wife, on the eve of his trial for an unrelated matter for medical malpractice.

On the eve of trial my firm was called into the case for the very first time, to defend his interests in an action for medical malpractice, wherein the plaintiff sustained serious brain damage and seizure disorder.

Unequivocally, and without hesitation, I said yes. I would never let a client down. That has been my firmís position with our clients over the past 21 years and always will be.

Experts in a multiplicity of specialties had to be retained with review of box loads of records literally overnight since this footwork had not been done prior to my firmís entry into the case; not to mention the fact that it was not easy trying to get complete and accurate information, files and films from the prior firm who split the defense as there was resistance.

The compelling issues requiring immediate resolution, prior to jury selection, involved the admissibility of the murder 2 conviction and venue transfer due to pre trial publicity. Through a series of fast paced immediate Order to Show Causes, motions to Renew and Reargue, Stays in the lower Court and the Appellate Division and eventually intervention to the court of Appeals of the State of New York, the burning questions remained, CPLR 4513, permitting the admissibility of the conviction of any crime at any time, in a civil litigation context without judicial discretion, is unconstitutional on its face. Moreover, the Courtís ruling that a murder 2 conviction was admissible for credibility and to establish a cause of action for medical malpractice, was an insidious extension of CPLR 4513, thereby further infringing upon the constitutional rights of Dr. Reza to a fair trial by impartial jury.

Ultimately, the Courtís unusual ruling is in actuality the insidious effect of the statute itself. As borne out by empirical data in my multiple motions, the moment a juror hears murder 2, it is automatically equated with establishing liability for the civil cause of action, no matter how unrelated.

Literally, I had to digest 7 years worth of litigation in a limited time frame for trial. Against this back drop, my firm and I pulled it off.

Amidst the Herculean efforts on the eve of trial of pursuing the above motions, we were also in the position of dealing with the prison system, gaining access to our client and the limitations therein, which were overcome. Further, over 30 hours of Court T.V. coverage of the murder trial needed to be analyzed, given the Courtís ruling of admissibility. As a consequence of said ruling, one needed to be prepared for the medical malpractice action and murder, since anything concerning the crime and underlying events was fair game at trial.

In the height of the Noreaster that blasted New York, hard work, ingenuity and talent paid off. My firm singlehandedly obtained a stay from the Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals in Albany, hot off the fax. What a tremendous sense of accomplishment, that against all impossible odds, including the hazardous event of the severe Noreaster storm to blanket New York out of the blue, we won!!! In the height of the Noreaster we served that decision on all sides. The Courtís decision was an attestation to my firmís ingenuity, hard work, and never give up no matter what attitude which has served my clients well over the past 21 years. This was a unique and rare feat, given the Courtís general rule to deny stays of trials.

The co-defendants and plaintiff were skeptical, could not fathom why we=d bother as we did, to fight so hard often saying relax, donít sweat it and donít bother, youíll never win. Part of our valor is that we do not take the easy way out, or the lazy manís road. We use every innovative and creative tool in our arsenal to succeed. If you have no fire in the belly you go nowhere. We definitely have fire and fight with it to the end, no matter what the dictate of conventional wisdom. Thatís how our cases are won and our landmark decisions are made.

I accomplished all of the foregoing in record speed, with the assistance of a crack dynamic staff, leading to a reasonable settlement, given the foregoing dynamic and aggressive defense of Dr. Reza.

Over the years weíve had successful motions for summary judgement and defendant dismissals, (pre-trial, cost effective) defendantís verdicts and low verdicts (PIASECKI v. RASHID), despite overwhelming odds and serious brain damage claims, wherein we proved plaintiff to be 90% negligent.

When it comes to the care and treatment of our cases, we are well known for taking the lead, aggressively so, whether it be EBTís, discovery, trials, Appeals, leaving no stone unturned in pursuing the aggressive defense of a client. We have the success rate and record to prove it, not to mention the client letters over the years sent to me in recognition of our competency, success, and zeal of the Lion of Judah at trial.

CREED v. DR. ALBERT PARKER, UNITED HOSPITAL, IVF AUSTRALIA:
Supreme Court, Westchester County

My firm obtained a Landmark decision that hit the front page of the New York Law Journal.

The CREED case involves the erroneous implantation of an embryo into the wrong woman via the in vitro fertilization program at United Hospital in Westchester.
Mr. & Mrs. Creed sued United Hospital, IVF Australia and Dr. Albert Parker, for alleged medical malpractice, claiming psychological damages over the loss of their embryo. We immediately commenced a motion to dismiss, based upon multiple grounds, in particular, where there is an exclusive claim of emotional distress and no independent physical injury, there can be no recovery.

The lower Court denied our motion to Dismiss and motion to renew and reargue.

We immediately appealed to the Appellate Division 2nd Department. Co-defendant followed suit. The Court adopted our position that a claim exclusively based on psychological injury is barred, absent physical injury.

We likened the case to the line of stillbirth cases, whereby a woman who carries a child for 9 months and has a stillbirth cannot recover for emotional distress without an independent physical injury.
We stated that if a woman who carries a child for 9 months, cannot recover for purely emotional distress, then a fortiori, where there was no contact between embryo and the Creeds, recovery could not be allowed.

Moreover, we stressed a long line of Appellate Division 2nd Department cases denying said recovery in analogous situations and further delineated public policy concerns of limiting liability and not expanding the zone of danger beyond manageable parameters, as it would give rise to spurious claims of psyche.

Where would liability end? What if the potential grandparents and/or aunts sought emotional distress claims? What if the embryo was dropped on the floor? What if the embryo was properly implanted in Creed, but it did not take? Our policy arguments were persuasive and the Court adopted them.

Moreover, we stressed the absence of physical injury. Plaintiff attempted to use the argument that the initial extraction of the ovum constituted the physical injury. However, as we pointed out in case law and theory, the extraction did not proximately cause the injury, nor was there any claim of negligent extraction. The Court agreed.

We also distinguished the Creed case from the limited exception cases, whereby emotional distress claims are allowed without physical injury, i.e. where hospitals state that a close family relative is alive, when they are dead, or dead when they are alive; and cases where an individual is in a ski lift and the protective bar opens. In these cases it is a close enough situation, that the threat of spurious claims is relatively non existent.

Issues concerning the status of the embryo as a person, given the proscriptions of Roe v. Wade, were briefed, but not addressed by the Court.

Presumably, the issue was not addressed, as it would of necessity re-opened the Roe v. Wade debate and compel a determination as to whether or not an extra corporeal embryo is a person.

Summary Judgement in LECH v. FLUSHING HOSPITAL (Supreme Queens) was successful for us (target defendant), but not successful for co-defendant hospital.

Summary Judgement was successful against Pegalis and Wachsman in a multimillion dollar death case against two of my clients. PAK v. EDASERY, FALK (Supreme Queens); dismissal successful, and the list goes on.

SINDILARU v. JAHANGIR (Supreme Kings) defendant successfully dismissed during trial after his testimony, without paying a nickel.

YUKHANONOV v. KARDON dismissed (Pre-discovery) (Cost Effective), and the list goes on.

My client was saved from a mega buck runaway verdict in one matter, (Supreme New York) trial. The client sat in the victorís seat with a minimal contribution to a sizeable huge settlement, with co-defendant paying the lionís share. Judge Gammerman marveled at our settlement results.

With Judge Gammerman as trial Judge, we had the potential for sky is the limit verdict, with a plaintiffís verdict virtually guaranteed. We paid a fraction of the cost of settlement with co-defendant bearing the lionís share despite substantial factors which should have had us paying a lot more. The fact that we didnít pay the lionís share is attributable to my strategy.

Victory was sweet, given the fact that I was dealing with a young healthy stripper turned Van Gogh, with paintings hanging in prestigious Art Galleries around the country, who was now comatose, and a foreign unlicensed doctor brought into the operating room by our doctor, potentially causing the fatal injection.

The carrier tried dealing with the plaintiffís three trial attorneys, who were characters, mercurial, for months to exact a settlement without success.

The case was complex in the legal and medical arenas, with many twists and turns, and breaking news type events transpiring on a daily basis.

We avoided a disaster at trial by this settlement.

ASTION v. ST. CLARE'S, DR. TULENKO

Medical Malpractice action, Supreme Court, New York County

Case dismissed against all defendants after trial and before the jury could deliberate per defense post trial motions concerning unsubstantiated, speculative evasive testimony of plaintiffís expert. No appeal was ever taken.

Plaintiff, while walking across the street in New York was caught in the midst of gun fire, when an Irish transvestite bank robber opened fire with police. A bullet shattered through his right (dominant) hand. My plastic surgeon did a salvage reconstructive operation on the plaintiffís hand.

Plaintiff claimed the surgery was improperly performed, thereby resulting in the loss of the distal phalanx of the middle finger, superficial phlebitis of the wounded hand giving rise to a blood clot, traveling to his lung, resulting in pulmonary emboli during his hospitalization at St. Clareís for hand surgery.

Through various experts in plastic surgery, pulmonary medicine, and vascular surgery we disputed all claims vigorously. Had the case not been dismissed prior to jury deliberation, the jury advised us afterwards, it would have been a unanimous defendantís verdict.

WILKS v. CINELLI:
Supreme Court, New York County

Mr. Robert Tessler trial veteran, at that time from Julian, Schlesinger and Finz tried the case for the Plaintiffs. I tried the case before Judge Dennis Donovan in Supreme Court, New York County on behalf of the illustrious plastic surgeon, Dr. John Cinelli. (Performed surgery on Marlo Thomas, Sugar Ray Leonard, etc.).

My jury consisted of an actor, social worker, radio producer for Imus in the Morning, some clericals and teacherís aides. In essence I was dealing with your ideal Plaintiffís jury. Yet, after 2 hours of deliberation, the jury came in with a unanimous verdict for the Defendant, Dr. John Cinelli.

According to Judge Donovan, Supreme Court Justice, the Plaintiff did not lose the case, but rather, I won it. Moreover, he stated repeatedly and emphatically that my cross examination was brilliant and that I would be the next leading trial attorney in New York. I do not convey this information to you to sound boastful, but rather, to give you the comments of others in order to assess my qualifications and skills.

Dr. John Cinelli indicated that he was extremely pleased with the defense of his case. In fact, mid-trial, he informed me that he did not care if he won or lost the case inasmuch as he knew that he had the best defense.

I have dealt with product liability actions regarding a diversity of complex issues and a multiplicity of products, ranging from alleged exploding coffee pots, defective helmets, monsanto fiber implants, allegedly causing horrific head and scalp injuries and scarring, requiring scalp lifts, neurological and immune system breakdown, etc.; allegedly defective farberware products and universal gym equipment.

Dental Malpractice: Complex issues involving cancer of the jaw and standard issues regarding crowns, bridges, implants, extractions, root canal, etc. Francis vs. Cwynar , McGrath vs. Cohen, Pellino vs. Waldman, etc.

Podiatry: Every conceivable type of orthopedic injury/surgery; toe, feet, legs, back arms, foot drop, fractures, hip replacement, foot/toe deformity, etc.


ON THE CHARACTER OF THE FIRM

In addition to becoming aware of my medical and legal credentials, I think that it is important for you to know a little bit about me as a person. I am a fighter. Even when all the odds are against me, I do not give up. I may not always win each and every case, however, no matter the outcome, I either win or lose on my feet fighting and giving 100% all the time. My Associates adhere to the same philosophy. The vast majority of our cases have been won.

Moreover, I work very hard. When I am on trial I am constantly working on the case till the early hours of the morning and on weekends. I do this because it is crucial for me to have total command of the case, the transcripts, the medical records and current medical research. The only way to win a case is by painstaking detailed fact by fact analysis and review. There is absolutely no other way.

I thoroughly enjoy litigation, from the day that the Summons and Complaint comes into the office to the day that the verdict is rendered. Consequently, each case is handled with painstaking care in anticipation of the day that it goes to trial. This detailed preparation is mandatory for each and every case.

Moreover, it is crucial to obtain initial interviews with the Defendant-client and witnesses at the earliest stages of litigative maturity to ensure clarity in recollection concerning the events giving rise to the action.

Next, it is crucial to have all medical records of prior and subsequent treating physicians prior to trial. Many is the time that I have been thrust in the middle of trial for other firms where little to no preparation had been done in that area, thereby making the trial attorneyís task that much more difficult, by having to issue numerous subpoenas during the trial itself. There is no substitute for careful preparation whether it be a slip and fall case or a brain damaged baby case, or a defective product.

Current and frequent updated reports to the client are crucial to a case so that both the client and the lawyer are operating with the same knowledge and factual information and nuances of the case, thereby avoiding any guesswork by either side. Itís more than just intelligence and good training. My firm is committed to a practice oriented to the client, the human being who needs our services. I want to know what is going on in the clientís business sector, whether itís insurance, medical malpractice, negligence, or product liability. I watch the news and read trade publications and journals, attend conferences and seminars to keep up-to-date to be alert to new trends, to help the client plan for the future. I think of my firm as a part of a clientís team.

Any law firm--if it has the brains and the front-line experience--can do the work. What separates me is the personality of my firm: how your problems are handled, how expeditiously, responsibly and responsively they are dealt with, and how comfortable it is to work with us.

We have a sharp legal team of trial attorneys, great investigators and top notch support personnel, reliable and dedicated. We have state of the art computers, trial graphics, and law library.
I have provided you with a sample of my background, experience and personal philosophy concerning the handling of cases in suit. However, if there is additional information which you may require in order to assess my qualifications, please do not hesitate to call me at (212) 696-0133.



CURRENT LAW FIRM UPDATE



PRACTICE: DEFENSE CIVIL LITIGATION TRIAL ATTORNEY

BAR ADMISSIONS: NEW YORK STATE AND FEDERAL COURT,
U.S. SUPREME COURT, WASHINGTON, D.C.

PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES AND MEMBERSHIP: HONORARY CHAIRMAN PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION- SMALL BUSINESS- ATTEND PRESIDENTIAL DINNER IN WASHINGTON

MEDIA EXPOSURE:

T.V. ANCHORMAN
CHUCK SCARBOROUGH, CHANNEL 4 NEWS,
IN DEPTH INTERVIEW

BARRY FARBER, WMCA RADIO,
ONE-ON-ONE DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
WITH BARRY FARBER

MEMBER OF MEDICAL MALPRACTICE
PANEL - SUPREME NEW YORK (When Extant)

PARTICIPANT IN JUDICIAL SCREENING
PROCESS, N.Y. COUNTY

NEW YORK STATE BAR ASSOCIATION,
TRIAL LAWYERS AND TORT LIABILITY
SECTIONS

DRI, TRIAL, MEDICAL, W.COMP., PDCT. LIAB. SECTIONS

NY WOMEN'S BAR ASSOCIATION, TRIAL, JUDICIAL, INSURANCE SECTIONS

PUBLISHED MEDICAL-LEGAL ARTICLES
IN THE DANY JOURNAL

PUBLISHED ARTICLE IN THE BEVERLY HILLS BAR JOURNAL

UNDERGRADUATE: MARYMOUNT COLLEGE, TARRYTOWN, N.Y.
GRADUATED: TOP 10
B. A. ENGLISH

LAW SCHOOL: SOUTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA
GRADUATED: NO. 4TH IN CLASS
J.D. 1979

SCHOLARSHIP, LAW REVIEW, MOOT COURT, AM JUR AWARD EVIDENCE


LAW OFFICE OF MARIAN POLOVY
SENIOR TRIAL ASSOCIATE
JOHN HUNT



I. UNANIMOUS DEFENDANTíS VERDICT IN EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION ACTION WHERE OVERWHELMING ODDS FAVORED PLAINTIFF TO WIN.

Plaintiff, a middle level supervisor for the Westchester County Dept. of Social Services, brought an employment discrimination action in Federal Court against the County of Westchester alleging that she was discriminated against on the basis that she was an African American. Plaintiff claimed that although she had earned a Masters Degree and had repeatedly scored high on a number of the standard management examinations, she was continually passed over for promotion, while lesser qualified Caucasians were promoted over her. The plaintiff's attorney was well known for his success in the field of employment discrimination. The discovery was voluminous and complicated as it covered years and years of minutiae regarding employment practices on the part of the municipality which employed over 12, 000 people. The jury deciding this matter in the Southern District of New York was mixed with regard to both gender and race. Not a slam- dunk. Our position that won the day was that the promotion in question was based solely on non-race based criteria and the promotion was awarded to a better qualified candidate who in that instance just happened to be a Caucasian male. The trial involved the testimony of more than a dozen adversarial witnesses. John Hunt representing the County of Westchester, successfully obtained a unanimous defendantís verdict.

II. WE WIN A HORRENDOUS FAILURE TO DIAGNOSE CANCER CASE DESPITE PLAINTIFF AND CO-DEFENDANT GUNNING FOR OUR DEFENDANT DOCTOR AND A SYMPATHETIC TEAR JERKER OF A PLAINTIFF AT DEATHS DOOR PARADED BEFORE THE JURY.

Plaintiff, a 34 year veterinarian brought a medical malpractice action against our client, his family physician, alleging that defendant failed to diagnose Non-Hodgkins lymphoma. Plaintiff claimed that he complained of swollen lymph nodes in his armpit and groin and pain in his lower abdomen. He claimed that the defendant failed to properly examine him and failed to follow up on abnormal blood tests. He alleged that he continued to issue the same complaint on numerous subsequent visits. By the time the cancer was diagnosed, it had spread to various parts of his body. Over the years, the plaintiff had undergone extensive radiation and chemotherapy as well as two bone marrow transplants. He later developed a serious reaction to the donor's bone marrow cells.
Plaintiff came into court only on limited occasions, due to his severely compromised immune system. His limited appearances in Court were real show stoppers as he had to wear a mask, dark sun glasses and white gloves due to a poor immune system and hypersensitivity to light. He was emaciated; bald, and his skin was pale yellow. The co-defendant in that case worked hand-in-hand with the plaintiff to point the finger of blame at the family physician defended by my firm by John Hunt. John argued that plaintiff did not have any signs or symptoms of lymphoma and that plaintiff responded well to antibiotics which led the defendant to the reasonable medical diagnosis of infection-- not cancer. We successfully obtained a unanimous defendantís verdict.

III. ANOTHER UNANIMOUS DEFENDANTíS VERDICT IN CASE WHERE SURGEON IS ACCUSED OF BOTCHED SURGERY

Plaintiff brought a medical malpractice action in Federal Court against her surgeon who had performed hernia repair surgery to both sides of her groin. She claimed that she experienced permanent numbness and pain in her groin and genital area as well as urinary incontinence. There was a loss of consortium claim. Defendant argued that based on basic human anatomy he could not have caused all of her complaints and that some numbness could result from scar tissue formation. Plaintiff not only had an expert surgeon in her corner, but also called to the witness stand a non party treating neurologist who testified against our defendant. With a rapier tongue, and kamikaze cross, John decimated the expert and non-party treating doctor and obtained a unanimous defendantís verdict.

IV. VIGOROUS DEFENSE AND ARTFUL NEGOTIATION RESULTS IN PLAINTIFF THROWING IN THE TOWEL REGARDING OUR CLIENT WHILE CO-DEFENDANT HAS TO PAY UP

In a wrongful death case, the wife of the decedent-patient brought a medical malpractice action against two surgeons alleging that the defendants performed improper surgery on her decedent-husband. The decedent had a colonoscopy, but the snare of the colonoscope was caught on a polyp in the decedent's large intestine. The surgeons removed the snare and the polyp and then closed up the small intestine. Shortly thereafter, the decedent developed a serious infection and a second surgery was performed by the two defendants. Within a few weeks the decedent died. The plaintiff's experts claimed that the surgeons should not have closed up the patient's intestine after the first surgery, but rather should have created an opening in the abdominal wall permitting the injured part of the intestine to remain outside the body during the healing process via colostomy. My firm represented one of the two surgeons and John tried the case. John translated complicated medical procedures and treatment into simple plain words for the jury to understand. After the two surgeons testified at trial, the case against the surgeon represented by my firm was discontinued, and the other defendant settled the action with the plaintiff. John convinced plaintiff and co-defendant that the co-defendant should pay the freight. We paid nothing.

V. CASE WORTH MEGA MILLIONS: TOTAL PARALYSIS OF TWO YEAR OLD, BRAIN DAMAGED FIVE YEAR OLD AND SEVERELY INJURED PARENTS SUCCESSFULLY DISPOSED OF VIA SUMMARY JUDGEMENT AND MINIMAL SETTLEMENT

In one of the most heart breaking automobile accidents in the history of Westchester County, a Rhode Island family sued the County of Westchester and the corporation that owned the other vehicle involved in the car accident. The defendant corporation's van crossed over into the opposite lane of traffic and smashed into a station wagon occupied by a Rhode Island family of four. The father driving the car suffered a severely crushed foot and multiple broken ribs. His foot later developed a serious infection resulting in surgery where much of his heel was removed and the father was confined to a wheel chair for almost one year. His two year old son suffered the most severe injuries of the family as he was rendered totally paralyzed from the neck down. The 5 year old daughter suffered permanent brain damage with difficulty moving one side of her body. The mother who was seated in the front passenger seat suffered multiple broken ribs, fractured bones in her feet and a severe laceration to her forehead.
The family had to move into a new home in Rhode Island which did not have steps because everyone in the family with the exception of the mother of the two children was confined to a wheelchair. The past and future medical bills for the two children ran into the tens of millions of dollars.
The plaintiffs sued the County of Westchester as the owner of the roadway, alleging that the roadway where the accident occurred was defective because it lacked median barriers separating the opposite lanes of traffic. The plaintiff's further alleged that the roadway lacked adequate signage, the speed limit was excessive, and that the roadway was improperly maintained. The plaintiff contended that it was raining at the time of the accident and that the roadway surface through neglect and improper maintenance had become excessively polished and smooth, which caused the co-defendant's vehicle to skid into the plaintiff's vehicle. Plaintiff further contended that in some areas there were depressions in the roadway which allowed rainwater to pool and accumulate, causing vehicles to skid, and thus contributing to the horrific accident.
Both the plaintiff and co-defendant fought bitterly against the County which was represented by John Hunt of my firm. The child seat manufacturer, child seat distributor, and a seat belt safety device company were brought into the action as third party defendants.
John personally handled every single deposition in the case, the voluminous discovery, and extensive motion practice. Numerous depositions took place involving witnesses from different states. Through extremely tough and creative motion practice, John was able to prevent the disclosure of numerous County road maintenance and road design files in the case.
John obtained the necessary defense experts and he prepared a summary judgment motion which successfully disposed of all but one claim against the County of Westchester. Due to the tremendous success of John's Summary Judgment motion, he was able to engineer an extraordinarily favorable settlement for the defendant County of Westchester in the amount of only $125,000, whereas the co-defendant and third party defendants settled for a total of over twenty one million ($21,000,000) dollars.

VI EXPLOSIVE CIVIL RIGHTS ACTION AGAINST MUNICIPALITY AND OFFICERS SUCCESSFULLY DEFENDED AT TRIAL

An inmate at the Westchester County Jail through his private attorneys brought a Federal Civil Rights action against two correction officers and the County of Westchester claiming that he was brutally beaten by the two correction officers. The trial involved complicated issues of Federal Civil Rights law and the testimony of more than 14 controversial and adversarial witnesses and medical experts. The stakes were high and involved not only punitive damages against the municipality, but the personal assets of the officers involved. John represented the defendant municipality and the individual correction officers, and obtained a unanimous verdict in favor of all of the defendants.


JOHN C. HUNT, ESQ.


EDUCATION

PACE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW, White Plains, NY
J.D. June 1992 Class Rank: Top 20%
Honors: Deanís List (four semesters) G.P.A. 3.2
Admitted in NY & CT
Pace International Law Journal, Articles Editor-Published Treatise on Patent Law for Pace International Law Review

PUBLICATIONS:
New York Law Journal - May 26, 2000 Front Page Article, Introducing Radiological Evidence at Trial.

HERBERT H. LEHMAN COLLEGE, Bronx, NY May 1993
30 Credits Ė Chemistry, Physics and Biology G.P.A. 3.8

MERCY COLLEGE, Dobbs Ferry, NY Graduated Magna Cum Laude
B.S. Business Management G.P.A. 3.7 December 1988


LEGAL EXPERIENCE:
LAW OFFICE OF MARIAN POLOVY Associate Attorney
New York, New York April 2001 to Present
Trial attorney - Defense firm- Complex hard hitting litigation. Successfully tried to verdict a wide variety of complex medical malpractice actions, defense product liability and general liability, employment law issues, and general civil litigation, etc.

WESTCHESTER COUNTY LAW Assistant County Attorney
DEPARTMENT, White Plains, NY April 1997 to April 2001

Trial attorney for large municipality in tort litigation division. Responsible for heavy caseload from inception to trial. Successfully tried to verdict cases involving personal injury, police brutality, and employment discrimination.

ADLER & ROSENZWEIG Associate Attorney
New York, NY June 1995 to March 1997
Associate attorney engaged in plaintiffsí personal injury, medical malpractice & products liability litigation with experience in analyzing medical records, discovery, motion practice, depositions, settlement negotiations and trials.

POPS & ASSOCIATES
Associate Attorney
New York, NY
February 1994 to June 1995
Plaintiffsí attorney in personal injury firm responsible for heavy caseload from inception to settlement, including conducting client interviews, drafting complaints, performing legal research, drafting motions, holding depositions, conducting settlement negotiations and arbitrations.