Main Navigation
Law Office of Eric B. Grossman
Eric B. Grossman
I received my Bachelor’s degree from Indiana University and initially pursued a career as an advertising copywriter. I then attended the University of Toledo College of Law. My father was a prominent personal injury attorney in Niagara Falls and I was quite fortunate to have been mentored by him and his partners.
My former firm, Grossman, Levine & Civiletto, was designated as "Lead Counsel" in representing over 1,400 individuals and family members from exposure to toxic chemicals arising from Love Canal.
Prior to opening up my private practice, I previously served Of Counsel and as Co-Chair and Chairman of the Personal Injury Department at HoganWillig, PPLC.
I have given my best effort to my clients. I am honored that they have entrusted me with their legal claims. I handle all cases personally and can assure clients their cases will be handled as expeditiously as possible, with professionalism and diligence. I strive to promptly return all phone calls and to address any client concerns about the legal process.
I have 30 years of experience as a personal injury litigator, having successfully handled personal injury cases ranging from car accidents, no-fault disputes and scaffold collapses to animal bites, wrongful death, premises liability as well as Love Canal toxic torts claims. Many of my cases are referred to me by other attorneys or former satisfied clients.
Whether it is an arbitration, trial or appeal, my clients have relied on my skill and guidance from the inception of each case through the conclusion. Although I will advise clients on the focus and direction of their case in which manner I feel is in his or her best interest to proceed, my clients will always have the ulitmate choice regarding proceeding to trial or not. For those with transportation or mobility issues, I am pleased to meet clients in their homes or other convenient locations.
I have also served on the Judicial Ratings Committee of the Niagara County Bar Association for many years and have received hundreds of client referrals from the Erie County Bar Association.
Education
J.D., 1984, University of Toledo College of Law
B.A. in Telecommunications, 1978, Indiana University
Admissions to Practice
New York State, 1985
U.S. District Court, Western District of New York
Arizona Supreme Court, 2015
Awards & Recognition
Super Lawyers - Upstate Edition: Personal Injury - Plaintiff, 2012, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018
Super Lawyers is a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high-degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The selection process is multi-phased and includes independent research, peer nominations and peer evaluations.
Martindale-Hubbell AV Preeminent® Overall Peer Rating
The Martindale-Hubbell® Peer Review Ratings™ are an objective indicator of a lawyer's very high ethical standards and professional ability. Attorneys receive a Peer Review Rating™ based on evaluations by other members of the bar and the judiciary. Martindale-Hubbell® Peer Review Ratings™ reflect a combination of achieving a Very High General Ethical Standards rating and a Legal Ability numerical rating. A threshold number of responses is required to achieve a rating. Eric B. Grossman's AV Preeminent rating is a significant rating accomplishment - a testament to the fact that a lawyer's peers rank him at the highest level of professional excellence. For more information, visit martindale.com.
Sample Appellate Cases
- McGriff v. Mallory, 2018 NY Slip Op 3003 (4th Dept. 2018) - Unanimously reversed Supreme Court ruling by awarding Plaintiff costs of alternative service, pursuant to CPLR 312-a.
Brege v. Town of Tonawanda, 148 AD3d 1792 (4th Dept. 2017). Supreme Court abused its discretion in denying Plaintiff's application to serve and file a late Notice of Claim, when the Notice of Claim would not have substantially prejudiced the Defendant.
Gaiter v. City of Buffalo Board of Education, 125 AD3d 1388 (4th Dept. 2015), 2015 Slip. Op 72915 (Ct. of Appeals (2015) - Following a bench trial in which defendant contended it was entitled to a jury trial and a reduction of the substantial monetary verdict, the Fourth Department unanimously dismissed the appeal of defendant on the grounds that its appeal failed to include relevant and necessary documents in the record on appeal. In the two years from the verdict until the dismissed appeal, significant interest accrued, resulting in judgements over $1,700.000.00. The Court of Appeals subsequently dismissed defendant's motion seeking leave to appeal.
Wilson v. Colosimo, 101 AD3D 1765 (4th Dept. 2012) - Modified Supreme Court's order by reinstating Plaintiff's complaint, finding Plaintiff raised questions of fact on various "serious injury" threshold categories.
Murphy-Tarver v. Lester, 23 AD3d 993 (4th Dept. 2005) - Reversed Justice Dillon’s refusal to grant immediate judgment for costs of alternative service, pursuant to CPLR 312-a.
Barnes v. Kociszewski, 4 AD3d 824 (4th Dept. 2004) - Affirmed lower court’s order under CPLR 4404 vacating verdict and ordering a new trial on economic loss claim, even though there was no “serious injury” finding by the jury.
Parkhill v. Cleary, 305 AD2d 1088 (4th Dept. 2003) - Modified Supreme Court’s ruling on “serious injury” requirements and affirmed plaintiff’s right to allow jury to hear punitive damages claim. Also cited in 1 NY PJI3d 2:278 at 1466 (2006).
Mahar v, Fichte, 298 AD2d 948 (4th Dept. 2002) - Modified Justice Fricano’s denial of plaintiff’s motion by striking answer, unless malpractice defendant responds to demand for bill of particulars. Public Health Law 2805-d shifts burden of proof on affirmative defenses to defendant.
Winker v. Buffalo Paperboard, 278 AD2d 858 (4th Dept. 2000) - Supreme Court properly denied defendant’s motion to dismiss complaint. Question of fact existed on issue of whether defendant breached a duty to keep the contents of its dumpster in a reasonably safe condition.
Parkhill v. Cleary, 277 AD2d 963 (4th Dept. 2000) - Lower court denied plaintiff’s motion to depose defendant’s insurance claims adjuster. Fourth Department modified order, allowing non-party deposition of adjuster, under theory of “law of the case.”
Marino v. County of Erie, 258 AD2d 941 (4th Dept. 1999) - Appellate Division affirmed lower court’s order vacating jury verdict of “no-cause” due to tainted outside influence by foreperson. Also cited in 1 NY PJI3d 1:10 at 37, 38. (2006).
Gmeinder v. Benderson, 258 AD2d 685 (4th Dept. 1999) - Affirmed Justice Joslin’s order, finding questions of fact on the negligent manner of performing repairs to a sidewalk.
Marino v. Erie County, 224 AD2d 1034 (4th Dept. 1996) - Supreme Court’s unpublished order vacating insurance carrier’s APIP lien affirmed on appeal.
Joseph v. Angstrom, 198 AD 2d 863 (4th Dept. 1993) - Supreme Court agreed that plaintiff was entitled to obtain written statements of third-party defendant’s employees who were not serving in management-level positions. Fourth Department, however, mandated that the statements must be divulged to the opposing party (employer).
Obara v. Piekos, 161 AD2d 1118 (4th Dept. 1990) - Factual dispute exists whether seller of chain saw can be held liable, even if employer and employee are aware of safety defects.
Content copyright 2021. Law Office of Eric B. Gtossman. All rights reserved.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.