U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York

Marissa Bosek serves as Of Counsel in Rawle & Henderson’s Hackensack office. Ms. Bosek has extensive experience in multiple areas and has been practicing law since 2005.

Before joining the team at Rawle, Ms. Bosek was associated with a plaintiff’s firm in Northern New Jersey.  Her experience litigating premise liability and motor vehicle matters from the plaintiff’s side helps her anticipate the plaintiff’s strategy in litigating their cases.

Ms. Bosek has also served as an attorney in the areas of nursing home negligence and medical malpractice at multiple locations throughout New York where she appeared for various court conferences, drafted motions, deposed plaintiffs on various legal issues, and assisted with trial readiness.

Since joining Rawle & Henderson, Ms. Bosek has represented clients in catastrophic trucking litigation, premise liability actions, and assault and battery.

She brings insight from her past experience to zealously defend her clients here at Rawle & Henderson, LLP.

SELECTIVE REPRESENTATIVE MATTERS

SANCHEZ v. 9^th AVENUE DELAWARE OWNER, et al.

In this Bronx venued action, plaintiff alleges that defendants were liable under Labor Law §§ 200, 241(6), and 240(1) after he fell from a scaffold causing him to sustain injuries.

Plaintiff argued all defendants were liable for the plaintiff’s injuries, including, but not limited to Defendant Restoration Hardware, since Restoration Hardware hired and contracted with the general contractor to perform the outfitting on the premise.

Defendant successfully argued Summary Judgment as to all claims relating to Defendant Restoration Hardware and Labor Law claims §§ 200 and 241(6) as to all additional Defendants.

LARDIERE v. PACE COMPANIES OF NEW YORK, et al.

In this New York venued matter, plaintiff alleges that defendants were liable in Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1) and 241(6) because of injuries sustained after a sprinkler pipe fell, striking him in the head.  Plaintiff alleged a traumatic brain injury as a result.

Defendant Pace Companies of New York was granted Summary Judgment as to Labor Law §§ 241(6) and 240(1).  The Court held that the plaintiff was not a Labor Law plaintiff because he was a consultant, who was on the premise for the day.

Defendant Pace Companies of New York continued to fight zealously filing a Motion to Reargue as to Labor Law § 200 based upon the Court’s Summary Judgment Decision that plaintiff was not a party to benefit from the Labor Law provisions.  The Court granted the Motion to Reargue as to Labor Law § 200, leaving only general negligence claims viable.

EHIGIE V. HARLEM KNIGHTS, et al

In this matter, plaintiff’s Complaint sounded in premise liability because of an altercation that occurred at a bar in New York City.  Plaintiff served a Verified Bill of Particulars with additional claims not set forth in the Complaint.

Defendants’ filed a Motion to Strike the Plaintiff’s Verified Bill of Particulars to eliminate the additional claims.  The Court allowed plaintiff to amend the complaint to add the additional claims.

A Cross-Motion to Dismiss was filed in response to plaintiff’s Motion to Amend his complaint arguing that the Statute of Limitations expired.  The Court granted defendants’ Cross-Motion.

This motion assisted in settling this instant action for $10,000.