The cornerstone of any successful law firm is an attorney who understands the law and how to effectively argue legal issues for the benefit of his clients. This not only requires a vast knowledge of appellate court cases and statutes, but the ability to advocate a legal position based upon the circumstances that are presented in an individual case. Such a lawyer devotes most of his time to appeals and motions and providing immediate aid in the form of readily available consultation and written briefs to the trial lawyers in the firm who cannot wait for answers to questions that arise on the spur of the moment. This is where David Turret has proved invaluable to the overall success of Sanocki Newman & Turret, LLP.
Upon graduating Fordham Law School in 1977, Mr. Turret immediately commenced employment as a law assistant at the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, First Department, located in Manhattan. A few months later, he was admitted to the Bar, and shortly thereafter, Justice Arthur Markewich of that Court chose him to serve as his principal law clerk for the duration of his term. These formative years provided Mr. Turret with the invaluable training and insight to analyze subtle and complex legal issues.
Mr. Turret has worked on innumerable matters with the goal of enforcing the rights of those who have been unjustly wronged and have sustained catastrophic injury. In the course of his career, Mr. Turret has argued over one hundred appeals, and has appeared in the New York Court of Appeals, all four Appellate Divisions in the State of New York and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.
In addition to concentrating in medical malpractice, products liability and catastrophic injury actions, over the years Mr. Turret has litigated cases involving deprivation of civil rights, governmental misconduct, employment disputes and breach of contracts. He has represented major real estate owners and developers in actions for property damage arising from negligence in the design, development and construction of commercial and residential property as well as multi-defendant asbestos abatement claims. In the past, he engaged in criminal defense work, and represented a New York State Senator, who had been accused of participating in a scheme to defraud the New York City Transit Authority on a subway construction project.
Some of Mr. Turret’s recent appeals include:
Cabrera v. Collazo, 115 A.D.3d 147 (1st Dep’t 2014). The defense moved to dismiss a professional malpractice action arguing that an attorney cannot be held legally accountable when his client’s action is not timely commenced if that attorney dies before expiration of the statute of limitations. Pointing out that the attorney’s death certificate indicated that the attorney had died, presumably of a terminal illness at a cancer center, Mr. Turret argued that the attorney should be held responsible for his prior neglect of the matter, his failure to inform the client of the imminent running of the statute of limitations, and that his ability to represent the client was impaired. Noting that on a pre-answer motion a plaintiff is given the benefit of every possible favorable inference, the Appellate Court found that “it appeared that the inaction of counsel rendered the lapse of plaintiff's cause of action not merely possible -- or even probable -- but inevitable.”
Moray v. City of Yonkers, 95 A.D.3d 968 (2nd Dep't 2012). The decedent, a police officer employed by defendant municipality, and under the care of the defendant psychiatrist, shot and injured his wife before fatally shooting himself. Both defendants sought summary judgment dismissing the separate claims against them. Mr. Turret argued that the evidence and expert opinion raised an issue as to whether the municipality was negligent in failing to remove the decedent's revolver and send him for an independent mental health evaluation. The Court agreed. As to the defendant psychiatrist, Mr. Turret argued that based upon the facts and law, a jury could find departures from good and accepted psychiatric care with regard to diagnosis, ensuing psychotherapy, and the prescription of psychotropic drugs, and that such duty extended to the decedent’s wife. The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s decision [2010 WL4913512(N.Y.Sup)]. The case was ultimately settled before trial.
Twersky v. Busche, 37 A.D.3d 704 (2nd Dep’t 2007), was tried to verdict by Mr. Turret’s partner, Edward Sanocki. The Trial Judge reduced the jury’s conscious pain and suffering award of $1,000,000 to $650,000 and the jury’s wrongful death award of $460,000 to $0. In his appellate brief, Mr. Turret successfully argued that the amounts awarded by the jury were not excessive, and were firmly supported by the evidence presented at trial. The unanimous appellate tribunal agreed, and reinstated the jury’s awards on both claims, in the total amount of $1,460,000.00.
For several years, Mr. Turret co-authored a column on Products Liability Law for the New York Law Journal. In addition, he co-authored a chapter on Product Liability Law (Chapter 27) for the multi-volume treatise known as New York Practice edited by Robert Ostertag and Hon. James D. Benson, General Practice in New York, Volume 23, Chapter 27 (West Group 1998). Mr. Turret is a former member of the Advisory Board of the New York University’s Diploma Program in Paralegal Studies where he was an adjunct associate professor. From 1995 to 2008, he taught courses in Litigation, Legal Research and Writing, and Introduction to the Law.