Brian W. Colistra
Partner
tel.: 914.220.1505
fax: 914.946.0650

Areas Of Practice

At Pino & Associates, Mr. Colistra has tried a wide variety of high-exposure cases, including the defense of wrongful deaths and a variety of catastrophic injuries stemming from product liability, premises liability, construction defect, and lead paint exposure. He has obtained favorable trial results for our clients through directed verdicts and pre-verdict settlements. Recently, Mr. Colistra's practice has focused on defending a wide variety of claims for a large insurer of aviation losses.

Directed Verdict in Premises Liability Trial
In November 2004, Brian Colistra obtained a directed verdict after a one week trial in Richmond County, New York. Plaintiff claimed that the exterior door in a video store foyer was defective and unexpectedly slammed on her hand causing a chronic neurological condition known as Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy (RSD). It was alleged that the door closure mechanism was defective and that management knew about the condition and failed to repair it. As part of the Plaintiff's case the video store's Corporate Financial Officer was called who testified that he had written an apology letter to the Plaintiff. The letter stated that the store was aware of "a problem with the door". Plaintiff also called an expert engineer who opined that the closure mechanism on the door was broken, worn or improperly adjusted. The expert testified that the door would have been slamming so hard that management "should have known about the condition".

Mr. Colistra established through effective cross-examination that the CFO's letter was a standard customer relations function, that he did not recall investigating the incident or causing an investigation to be undertaken, and that he was not aware of repairs or repair orders related to the door in question. Cross-examination of the expert established that he had never visited the store and had never performed tests on the door or an exemplar. It was revealed that the experts opinion was rendered based solely upon his review of the Plaintiff's deposition testimony and three photographs of the door.

Mr. Colistra's Motion for a Directed Verdict was granted after the Court reviewed the direct testimony and cross-examination and found that the Plaintiff had failed to establish genuine questions of fact that would require allowing the case to be considered by the jury.

Wrongful Death Trial Settled Just Prior to Closing Arguments
In November 2004, Brian Colistra was successful in negotiating a favorable settlement for the client in a case brought by the Estate of a 26-year-old Civil Engineer who was killed on a construction site when his co-workers backed over him with a rack truck. Mr. Colistra tried the case in the New York State Court of Claims, for five days in February 2002 before an insurance stay caused a continuance. The trial resumed in November of 2004 and the parties were about to begin closing arguments when the settlement was reached.

Plaintiff claimed that the State of New York was strictly liable for having violated provisions of the New York State Labor Law and the Industrial Code by allowing workers on a construction site to back a vehicle in a hazardous area where persons were working, without the assistance of flagpersons. Testimony included expert Accident Reconstructionists, expert Safety Engineers, and numerous eyewitnesses.

In order to achieve an advantageous settlement Mr. Colistra argued that the proof at trial established that the Estate's claim involved a significant comparative negligence component as the deceased was the Engineer-in- Charge (EIC) on the site and therefore primarily responsible for compliance with all safety standards. Further he argued that the deceased had actually directed the driver of the truck to relocate it and accordingly knew it would be moving on the site. Finally, Mr. Colistra argued that the Plaintiff's expert Safety Engineer had misconstrued the Industrial Code in his testimony, and in fact there is no absolute prohibition in New York law against backing vehicles on a construction site without the assistance of flagpersons. These effective arguments were largely responsible for the resolution of the claim just before closing arguments were delivered.

Past Employment

Orange County Assistant District Attorney; Violent Crimes Unit, 1995-2000

Printer-friendly format.

Bar Admissions

• New York, 1998
• U.S. District Court Southern District of New York, 2000
• U.S. District Court Northern District of New York, 2003
• U.S. District Court Eastern District of New York, 2003
• U.S. District Court Western District of New York, 2003
• U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 2007

Education

• J.D., New York Law School, New York, New York, 1995
  
• B.A., Canisius College, 1991

Professional Associations and Memberships

• New York State Bar Association
• Westchester County Bar Association
• Association of Trial Lawyers of America
• Columbian Lawyers Association of Westchester County