Lorraine M. Girolamo is a Partner in the Westchester office of GRSM. A resident of Westchester County, New York, Lorraine is a wife; mother of two; and an experienced litigator.  She was born in Washington State - an Army brat (Go ARMY! Beat NAVY!), but raised mostly in New York, where she attended Yorktown High School, Binghamton University (SUNY) and Pace University School of Law, graduating with her juris doctorate and certification in Health Law, in 2002.    

Lorraine primarily focuses her practice on defending claims under the NYS Labor Law, as well as general liability and other complex litigation.  She frequently defends catastrophic construction and traumatic brain injury claims; wrongful death matters; auto cases; equipment defect claims; products liability cases; premises liability matters; health, sports and fitness-related litigation matters and general negligence claims. Her clients include various national health club and fitness chains, area hospitals, national corporations, commercial property owners, local businesses and various construction contractors. 

Lorraine handles cases from initial pleadings through trial and has extensive experience in handling depositions, mediations, trial preparations and appellate arguments, as she has successfully argued numerous appeals before the Appellate Division First and Second Departments. 

Lorraine is well-known for her responsiveness to her clients and focuses on helping them to identify, analyze and prevent exposures. She is known for her methodical organization and writing skills, holding to the belief that preparation and investigation are the most important things in successfully defending cases.

Admissions

• New York
• Connecticut
• U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York

Memberships

• Westchester Women’s Bar Association
• Westchester County Bar Association

Community Involvement

• Member of Lakeland School District Special Education PTA

• DiBenedetto v. Town Sports International: Ms. Girolamo successfully had this matter dismissed via summary judgment motion at the conclusion of discovery. The plaintiff, an avid gym goer and treadmill user was injured after stepping onto a moving treadmill, at our client’s health club. Plaintiff sued the health club, claiming that she was injured due to the health club’s negligence. Based upon the specific facts of the case, the trial court agreed that the defendant health club had no duty to safeguard the plaintiff from the inherent risks in treadmill use, due to her experience with the equipment, and dismissed the case. The matter went up to the Second Department on appeal and the trial court decision was affirmed.
• Alonge v. Town Sports International: We prevailed in the lower court and appellate court, having this matter summarily dismissed on behalf of our client, a major health club chain. The plaintiff was engaged in a group exercise class and was severely injured after colliding with another member. Plaintiff sued the health club, claiming that the group exercise instructor was negligent in instructing the class and caused/contributed to the incident. The trial and appellate courts affirmed dismissal of this matter, after we successfully argued that the plaintiff assumed the risk inherent in participation in the class.
• Ingram v. Life Fitness: The plaintiff, was a member of the defendant's gym for several years prior to the accident and had significant experience with cardio equipment, including treadmills. On the date of the accident, she attempted to climb on a treadmill that was left moving by a prior user. She claims that the accident was the gym's fault due to the inadequate spacing between treadmills, loud music, and the fact that the machine’s “Smart Stop” feature did not shut the machine off when the prior user vacated the machine. In addition to suing Gordon & Rees's client, the plaintiff also sued the treadmill manufacturer. The plaintiff claims that as a result of the accident she struck her head/face, causing her post-traumatic macular detachment and blindness in the left eye, and retinal detachment in the right eye, resulting in the need for her to undergo multiple surgeries. At the trial court level, Girolamo moved for summary judgment arguing that since the plaintiff was an experienced treadmill user and since there were no latent defects with respect to the treadmill, the primary assumption of risk doctrine applied, and barred any recovery against the firm's client. The trial court denied the motion and Ms. Girolamo appealed to the Appellate Division First Department. Ultimately the Appellate Division agreed with the arguments made and argued by Ms. Girolamo, and reversed the trial court’s decision, thereby dismissing all claims against the firm's client.
• Iemma v. Newburgh Nuclears: The infant plaintiff was a catcher for an American Legion baseball team and was injured during a baseball game against the firm’s client, the home team. The teams were playing on a City owned and operated field, when during the middle of the game the plaintiff ran to catch a fly ball and fell and was seriously injured after stepping onto a plastic water-box cover that was placed there to cover a sprinkler system.   Even though it was our client’s responsibility to water the field, we were able to establish that despite allegations that the cover was not properly put back into place, the fall actually occurred because the plaintiff’s own step cracked the cover and his cleat became lodged in the plastic, ultimately causing him to fall.  We argued that under those circumstances, since our client was did not own the field and was not responsible for the design or structure of the field, there could be no negligence established against it.   The Court agreed and granted our summary judgment motion.  
• Heche v. Town Sports International: The plaintiff was working out at our client’s health club, doing an ab workout on a weight bench, using a 30-pound kettlebell, when she suddenly fell off the bench and dropped the kettlebell on her hand, nearly severing her pinky finger.  She required open reduction, internal fixation to repair her finger and missed a significant amount of work in her private practice as an audiologist.  Since the plaintiff was not able to specifically identify a defect or dangerous condition as it pertained to the gym equipment she was using, the Court dismissed the action against our client.  We also defeated a cross-motion against our client seeking spoliation sanctions for an alleged failure to preserve video surveillance footage.  
• Figueroa v. 429-441 86th Street, LLC: The plaintiff brought suit against the firm’s client (building tenant), the landlord, the City of New York and a utility company after tripping and falling on a sidewalk outside our client’s business.  Throughout discovery it was demonstrated that the sidewalk defect was actually a cracked gas cap, which was ultimately the responsibility of the co- defendant utility company.  We successfully moved for summary judgment getting the case dismissed against the firm’s client.