Erik A. Goergen

/My focus

My practice focuses on litigating disputes in a wide range of complex commercial litigation and product liability matters, representing international, national, and local clients in the aviation, healthcare, manufacturing, and commercial real estate industries. My litigation experience also includes representing clients in Indian law matters and handling appeals in federal and New York State appellate courts, drawing upon my background as a former judicial law clerk at both the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and the New York State Court of Appeals.

/Representative experience

Trial Experience 

• PHI Air Medical v. Airbus Helicopters, Inc., State of New Mexico, Santa Fe, First Judicial District. Representation of Airbus Helicopters at a jury trial involving a helicopter accident in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Successfully argued motion for a directed verdict at trial resulting in the dismissal of the largest claim against Airbus Helicopters for breach of express warranty. Prior to trial, successfully argued summary judgment motion, which resulted in the dismissal of plaintiff’s claims for strict products liability, negligence, breach of implied warranty, and violations of New Mexico’s Unfair Practices Act (seeking over $8 million in damages).
• McCaleb v. Daher-Socata et al., Seventeenth Judicial Circuit of Florida, Broward County. Secured a unanimous defense verdict for French aircraft company Daher-Socata in a case that was featured as #4 in Courtroom View Network’s Top 10 Most Impressive Defense Verdicts of 2018. After a three-week trial, the jury agreed that pilot error caused the crash of a single-engine TBM 850 and that the aircraft is safe and free of any defect.
• Glazer v. Daher-Socata, Supreme Court of the State of New York, Monroe County. Representation of Daher-Socata against product liability and negligence claims stemming from an aircraft accident. Settled a few weeks before trial commenced.
• Wells Fargo Bank Northwest N.A. v. Airbus Helicopters Inc. et al., Texas District Court, Dallas County. Representation of Airbus Helicopters in a complex commercial case that was favorably resolved immediately before trial commenced.
• Markowitz v. Precipart Corporation, United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. Representation of gear manufacturer, Precipart Corporation in an employment discrimination case. Case settled one day before jury selection.

Appellate Experience

• Eccles v. Shamrock Capital Advisors, LLC, ___NY3d___, 2024 NY Slip Op 02841 (2024). Representation of the founders and original shareholders in the online sports gambling company, FanDuel, in a multi-billion dollar breach of fiduciary duty dispute. Successfully obtained leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals and a reversal of the Appellate Division, First Department’s order dismissing plaintiffs’ complaint. In reversing the Appellate Division, the Court of Appeals held that our clients sufficiently pleaded causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty under Scots law. 
• Khass v. N.Y. Presbyterian Brooklyn Methodist Hospital, 213 A.D.3d 824 (2d Dep’t 2023) and Khass v. N.Y. Presbyterian Brooklyn Methodist Hospital, 213 A.D. 3d 829 (2d Dep’t 2023). Representation of New York Presbyterian Brooklyn Methodist Hospital and successfully obtained a reversal of a lower court order that required the client to admit a recent medical school graduate into its pediatric residency program who had posted hateful anti-Semitic remarks on social media.
• Beth Israel Med. Ctr. v. New York State Office of Medicaid Inspector General, 221 A.D.3d 446 (1st Dep’t 2023). Representation of Beth Israel Medical Center in appeal seeking to overturn an $8 million penalty assessed by the New York Department of Health.
• Tuttle v. Front St. Affordable Hous. Partners, No. 20-17056, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 18443, 2022 WL 10967187 (9th Cir. July 5, 2022). Representation of Front Street Affordable Housing Partners in a case of first impression involving interpretation of an Internal Revenue Code provision establishing the Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program.
• Long v. Corning Inc., 847 F. App’x 74 (2d Cir. 2021). Affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff’s complaint asserting claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the New York State Human Rights Law against client Corning.
• Jessica WW. v. Misty WW., 192 A.D.3d (3d Dep’t 2021). Representation of pro bono client in a highly contentious child custody dispute involving a same-sex couple. The Appellate Division affirmed a child custody order that allowed for shared custody, which our client’s ex-wife was trying to overturn as part of a separate divorce proceeding (where she sought a sole custody order for herself).
• Oppedisano v. Arnold, 191 A.D.3d 794 (2d Dep’t 2021). Affirmed $3.8 million judgment in client’s favor rendered after a non-jury trial for damages based on the wrongful use and occupancy of our client’s real property.
• Alfred-Almond Central School District, et al. v. NY44 Health Benefits Plan Trust, 175 A.D.3d 1010 (4th Dep’t 2019). Affirmed order granting client NY44 Health Benefits Plan Trust and its Board of Trustees’ motion to dismiss breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, fraud, and conversions claims brought by 15 school districts across New York State. Thereafter, secured summary judgment in the Commercial Division dismissing breach of contract claims seeking over $8 million in damages that involved the provision of health insurance and other benefits to thousands of school district employees.
• Prosthetic Home Services v. Fidelis Care of New York, 154 A.D.3d 1283 (4th Dept. 2017). Affirmed order dismissing complaint against client Fidelis Care, a New York State sponsored health insurance provider, for fraud, breach of contract, and prima facie tort.

Indian Law/Appellate Experience

• Seneca Nation v. Hochul, et al., United States District Court for the Western District of New York, Case No. 1:18-cv-429-LJV-MJR. Representation of the New York State Thruway Authority in a case challenging the validity of an easement secured by the State of New York in 1954 over Seneca Nation land during the initial construction of the New York State Thruway. 
• Matter of Cayuga Nation v. Parker, ___AD3d___, 2024 NY Slip Op 03603 (4th Dep’t July 3, 2024) (Lead Appeal);
  Matter of Cayuga Nation v. Parker, ___AD3d___, 2024 NY Slip Op 03604 (4th Dep’t July 3, 2024);
  Matter of Cayuga Nation v. Parker, ___AD3d___, 2024 NY Slip Op 03602 (4th Dep’t July 3, 2024);
  Matter of Cayuga Nation v. Parker, ___AD3d___, 2024 NY Slip Op 03601 (4th Dep’t July 3, 2024). 
  Representation of Dustin Parker, a member of the Cayuga Nation who challenged multiple tribal court judgments rendered against him and his businesses in four separate appeals at the Appellate Division, Fourth Department. In the lead appeal, the Appellate Division reversed a lower state court judgment which granted the Cayuga Nation’s CPLR Article 4 petition to domesticate the tribal court judgment against our clients, holding that a tribal court judgment is a foreign judgment, that such judgments are recognized in New York under the doctrine of comity in accordance with CPLR Article 53, and that the tribal court judgments in these cases should not have been recognized under New York law. 
• Madison County v. Oneida Indian Nation, 131 S. Ct. 704 (2011). The United States Supreme Court vacated a Second Circuit decision preventing the defendant-counties from using tax foreclosure to collect lawfully owed property taxes from Indian tribe and remanded for further proceedings.
• Madison County v. State of New York, et al., v. Salazar, United States District Court for the Northern District of New York, Case No. 6:08-CV-00644. Representation of Madison and Oneida Counties in challenge to the US Department of Interior’s decision to acquire land-into-trust for the Oneida Indian Nation of New York.
• Stockbridge-Munsee Community v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York and State of New York, et al., 756 F.3d 163 (2d Cir. 2014). Representation of Madison and Oneida Counties in Stockbridge-Munsee Community land claim action.

/Insights

Erik Goergen was an author and editor for the Defense Research Institute’s Appellate Advocacy Committee Newsletter, Certworthy.

• “Appellate Jurisdiction—Final Judgements,” Certworthy Newsletter, Defense Research Institute, Vol. 19, Issue 1, June 2018.
• “Appellate Jurisdiction—Timeliness of Interlocutory Appeal,” Certworthy Newsletter, Defense Research Institute, Vol. 18, Issue 2, December 2017.
• “Appellate Jurisdiction—No Appellate Jurisdiction Over Enforcement of Permanent Anti-Suit Injunction,” Certworthy Newsletter, Defense Research Institute, Vol. 18, Issue 1, July 2017.
• “Appellate Jurisdiction—Consent to Magistrate Jurisdiction in Attorneys’ Fees Dispute,” Certworthy Newsletter, Defense Research Institute, Vol. 17, Issue 2, November 2016.  
• “Appellate Jurisdiction—Finality of Order Enforcing an Information Subpoena,” Certworthy Newsletter, Defense Research Institute, Vol. 17, Issue 1, April 2016.   
• Co-Author, “Appellate Procedure/Jurisdiction—Interlocutory Appeal Dismissed for Lack of Appellate Jurisdiction,” Certworthy Newsletter, Defense Research Institute, Vol. 16, Issue 2, September 2015 (Co-author).