>

Feature Story

>

John A. Corring, Esq.:  You’ll Never See Him Coming

>

by Sean M. Connors, J.D.

>

“As I ambled down Whitehall Street to building number 33, it was a beautiful day.  Spring had, as they say, sprung.  Since I’ve been in the New York City rat race for several years, I’ve always welcomed the fond memories that warm weather brings; growing up in the suburbs there was kickball in the street during the day and manhunt in the woods by night. Few individuals retain that youthful affability that flourishes in those suburban enclaves; but when they do there is, almost paradoxically, a formidable and disarming edge created in the world of litigation. These individuals are possessed of the most beguiling of all poker faces. That winsome affect coupled with a serious mind for critical thinking can leave even the most irascible opponent on his or her heels; John Corring, Esq. of Russo Keane & Toner, LLP is paradigmatic of this mold of litigator, and to put it quite simply, you’ll never see him coming. John grew up in a suburb of Fort Lee, New Jersey. He is the youngest of three children, and as is typical of the youngest in a family unit, John had the spirit and daring to match his lofty ambitions of becoming a great litigator. ‘As early as I can remember, I wanted to do trial work,’ he waxed with a grin. ‘I remember watching the epic courtroom battle between Mason and Newman in The Verdict, and knew that I wanted to do exactly that--try cases.’ Ironically, John approaches a trial with an air of levity that eluded both of his cinematic counterparts; and that’s what makes him so lethal in the courtroom. ’I love the art of persuasion; more specifically, the art of the cross-examination. As a litigator, I’ve always tried to hone those instincts that enable me to see when a witness is being less than forthright; and I love to get that incriminating information out of them.’ To do that, John prefers, invariably as the saying goes, to bait his bees with honey rather than with vinegar, employing that disarming personal stealth of a latter day Detective Columbo. ’Intimidating a plaintiff, whether during a deposition or on the witness stand will only cause him or her to keep their guard up, inhibiting attempts to extract those details that truly reveal the devil.’ This approach is also well received by a jury. ‘Allaying a jury’s natural sympathy for the plaintiff is,’ John states as a matter of fact, ‘without question, the biggest hurdle to surmount during a trial.’ According to John, a soft sale and lots of jokes go further than a grave presentation that might have the reverse effect of inflaming a jury’s collective sympathy for a plaintiff. These insights and instincts are only some of the intangibles that make for a superior litigator. A wise man once told me that, as gregarious creatures, human beings love to hear one thing more than any other; that is, the sound of their own name.  It has been my experience that the best litigators have an ability to engage a jury with their presentation; and what better way is there to meet this end than by remembering the name of each juror charged with weighing your version of the facts against that of your opponent?  Few attorneys display this seemingly innate skill and John is one of those few. ‘From the time I begin to pick a jury, I focus on getting to know each juror personally, committing each of their names to memory; and throughout the entire process it really makes an impact on them.’ As he wins the jury’s ear with this strategy, John is careful not to cast the plaintiff in too negative a light, but he will surely, yet subtly highlight his or her money motive for bringing suit.  On one occasion during his cross-examination of plaintiff’s medical expert, John was able to show that in performing a physical examination of the litigant to satisfy the No-Fault law, the expert gave the plaintiff a clean bill of health.  Then, having forgotten about his earlier dealings with the plaintiff, testified under oath that he was seriously injured as a result of the accident.  With such a contradiction present in the record, John was able to flesh out plaintiff’s more ignoble motive to collect unjustly.  But these gems are not always buried beneath the surface; the result then becomes a deadlock between sets of expert witness physicians, both of which were paid for their testimony. This ostensible draw may create the false impression that there is a level playing field on which common sense may still prevail. But as John remarked, juror sympathies are extremely difficult to displace; and with knee, back and shoulder surgeries looming large over the proceedings, the playing field is not level at all. This dynamic is a grave concern to both defense attorneys with regard to their craft, and to insurers who are besieged by soaring costs. As John notes, ‘a significant portion of the Plaintiff’s Bar are predisposed to making unreasonable demands during settlement talks; the majority of the time they are adamant about receiving the policy limits, and any documentation of injury bolstered with a surgical intervention makes them even more recalcitrant during negotiations.’ But rather than show up in court, checkbook in hand, waiting for the sword to fall, John looks to innovation through science to flesh out a plaintiff’s financial motive for bringing a seemingly specious claim. ‘The use of a biomechanical expert significantly brings down settlement values,’ he says enthusiastically, ‘and it goes a very long way to breaking the deadlock between two competing Medical Doctors at trial.’ Having tried over one hundred cases to verdict and with significant experience in utilizing these well credentialed scientists at trial, John is circumspect about their impact, especially where the type and severity of physical forces to which the plaintiff was subject and the injuries being alleged seem, at best, tenuously related.  ‘These experts add ammunition grounded in physics to the defense and, it’s my experience that the jury is always impressed when they hear the different types of motions and forces explained to them and how they affect a human being during a certain type of collision.’ John also points out the growing reticence among plaintiff’s to run this gauntlet that he enjoys preparing for them. ‘When a physicist from M.I.T. takes the stand to render his opinion whether plaintiff’s injuries could have been caused by a particular accident, count on one thing; plaintiff’s attorney will cross-examine the scientist, asking questions about everything except physics.’ Essentially these attorneys focus, rather passionately, on collateral information that has not anything to do with the expert’s biomechanical analysis. ‘It’s really all a big smoke screen to keep sympathy for the plaintiff alive,’ he smirks, ‘a medical doctor is eminently competent to diagnose a plaintiff’s malady; but then, for the most part, he or she makes a speculative assertion with regard to causation.  The biomechanical expert, by contrast, makes no attempt to contest this diagnosis; but since bodies invariably obey the laws of physics, he or she may testify quite confidently and convincingly about causation, which is basically the ability of those forces to compromise an allegedly injured body part.’ With such a broad and open perspective, John is able to stand up and fight, rather than stand back and hope for a fair result; and the unmitigated zeal with which he approaches a trial makes success all the more likely. ’The minute I’m assigned a trial, the only thing that I feel is an intense desire to rise to the occasion.’ During my own days in practice, I’ve seen many attorneys who approach a given trial with more of a grumble and a grouse than with the passion of a true advocate. But John’s attitude and ethic are, indeed, consistent with passionate advocacy. ‘I mean, the worst part for me has never been the preparation or the often times tedious legwork; the worst part for me is waiting for a verdict.’ And be not misled by that aforementioned levity toward a process that does, in fact, entail a great deal of intensive preparation. But it’s something John welcomes. ’Every time I get another case to try, it rouses me from any funk that I might be in,’ he mused. ‘Then after both sides rest, from the moment that the jury foreperson sends out the note, to the moment when the jury clerk takes the verdict, feels like an eternity,’ he said, again with youthful exuberance; and I thought once more, they’ll never see him coming. John received his B.A. in history from Rutgers and his J.D. from New York law School.  He is licensed to practice in New York and admitted to practice in is admitted to the United States District Court for the Eastern and Southern Districts of New York.  His current practice focuses on defending auto and premises liability on behalf of insurance companies and their insureds.”

>

>

Feature

>

Stephen B. Toner

“Stephen received his B.S. degree from the University of Massachusetts at Amherst in 1978 and his J.D. degree from New England Law in Boston in 1983.  While at New England Law, Mr. Toner completed courses in International Trade and Investment at Kings College, London, England, as well as at the University of Hong Kong’s School of Law in Hong Kong. Stephen was employed from 1978 through 1983 at AIG’s high risk and excess lines carrier, the  Lexington Insurance Company in Boston where he established the Recovery Unit of the Claims Department.  There he was nationwide manager of all outside counsel on their excess claims litigation.  He was also Manager of the  Reinsurance Department at The Lexington. Stephen has a significant record in obtaining defense verdicts in complicated medical malpractice actions and products liability cases, Directors & Officers/Errors & Omissions claims as well as a wide range of general liability actions.   He is a frequent lecturer to physicians at the State University Hospital system on malpractice avoidance as part of their continuing medical-legal education. Stephen is Board Certified as a Civil Trial Specialist, certified by the National Board of Trial Advocacy. Moreover, Stephen has served as senior trial counsel for several major New York City defense firms, where he handled cases involving substantial damage exposure, complex products liability, medical malpractice, dental malpractice, E&O/D&O claims and general liability defense. Stephen is admitted to practice in the State Courts of New York, Connecticut and Massachusetts, the Supreme Court of the United States, the Federal District Court of the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, the Supreme Court of the State of Connecticut, and U.S. District Court of Massachusetts, The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First & Second Circuits and the U.S. Court of International Trade.”

>

Feature

>

Thomas F. Keane

“Thomas received his B.A. from the State University of New York at Albany in 1982 and his J.D. from Fordham University School of Law in 1985. Thomas is admitted to practice law in the State and Federal Courts of New York. Thomas is an accomplished trial and appellate attorney with over 20 years of experience in handling a wide variety of insurance defense cases, primarily in the areas of automobile, premises, construction, product liability and personal injury defense litigation. He has argued appeals before the Court of Appeals of the State of New York, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, and the Appellate Divisions of the First and Second Departments. Moreover, Thomas has served as an instructor and guest lecturer for the Corporation Counsel’s Trial Advocacy Program at Fordham Law School, as well as for the St. John’s University School of Law.  He is a co-author of Advanced Trial Advocacy in New York. A partial list of published appeals briefed and argued by Mr. Keane are as follows: Carter v Full Serv., Inc., 2006 NY Slip Op 03626 (1st Dept. 2006); Pekelnaya v. Allyn, 25 A.D.3d 111, 802 N.Y.S.2d 669, (1st Dept. 2005); Blamer v. Singh, 20 A.D.3d 440, 797 N.Y.S.2d 777, (2nd Dept. 2005); Tamburello v. Bensonhurst Car & Limo Service, Inc., 305 A.D.2d 664, 759 N.Y.S.2d 690 (2nd Dept. 2003); Michel v. Gressier, (2nd Dept. 2002); Davis v. City of New York, (2nd Dept. 2002); Churyk v. Haner, (2nd Dept. 2000); Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Hartford Cas. Ins. Co., (2nd Dept. 2000); Fertik v. Fertik, (2nd Dept. 1999); Lagano v. Chrysler, (2nd Cir. 1998); Marinaccio v. New York Hospital, (2nd Dept. 1996); Wausau Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Continental Cas. Co., (1st Dept. 1996); Amusement Consultants, Ltd. v. Hartford Life Ins. Co., (1st Dept. 1995); Rivera v. Macaluso, (2nd Dept. 1994); Lyons v. National Union Fire Ins. Co., (2nd Dept. 1994); Krygier v. Airweld, Inc.(N.Y.Sup. 1987).”

>

Feature

>

John J. Komar

“John received a B.A. degree in English from the State University of New York, College at Purchase in 1980 and an M.A. in American Literature from the University of Massachusetts at Boston in 1982.  He received his J.D. from Pace University School of Law in 1988. John has primarily practiced in the area of premises and automobile liability defense, handling high exposure trials and appeals throughout New York City and the Hudson Valley region.  John's areas of expertise also includes the defense of elevator and construction liability cases and insurance coverage claims.  Finally, John has a BV rating from Martindale Hubbell.”