Haldon Greenburg is an Associate in Tyson & Mendes’ Fort Lauderdale office. His practice focuses primarily on personal injury and general liability litigation. Mr. Greenburg has extensive litigation and trial experience.
Mr. Greenburg represents individuals, businesses and insurance carriers throughout the state of Florida related to a variety of different legal matters including, construction defects, premises liability, first party property claims, wrongful death, personal injury, and contract related claims. Mr. Greenburg is a zealous advocate for his clients, frequently utilizing creative approaches and arguments to achieve favorable results. He successfully argued a dispositive motion related to a tenant’s claim for damages related to injuries sustained at a client’s apartment complex, and successfully argued for judgment in favor of his client, a construction worker, who was captured on video assaulting the Plaintiff at a residential/commercial construction site. Mr. Greenburg has also negotiated a number of complex multi-party civil litigation claims resulting favorable resolutions for his clients. Mr. Greenburg also has experience in the representation of individuals accused of felony and misdemeanor crimes by the state of Florida.
Mr. Greenburg graduated from Stetson University College of Law in 2008, where he was a member of the #1 nationally-ranked trial team and received multiple awards for excellence in trial advocacy. In 2004, he received his B.A. from the University of Florida where he was a member of Florida Blue Key. Mr. Greenburg is licensed to practice law in all Florida state courts and New York.
In his free time Mr. Greenburg enjoys hiking, travelling, and attending sporting events and concerts.
Recent Posts
Florida Case Law UpdatePier 1 Cruise Experts v. Revelex Corporation, No. 17-13956 (11th Circuit. 2019)
Miguel Lopez v. WilsonArt, LLC et al, 44 Fla. L Weekly D1808a, Fla. 5th DCA, July 12, 2019
It seems like only yesterday (October 2018 to be exact), that litigation attorneys in Florida were buzzing about the Florida Supreme Court’s 4-3 decision in DeLisle v. Crane Co.,[1] which seemed to resolve the question of how courts in the state would analyze the admissibility of expert testimony and evidence. In the DeLisle opinion the…
Shifting Risk of Injury and Liability: How I Learned to Love the Exculpatory ClauseEven in situations where a duty may be owed, valid exculpatory clauses in agreements between parties can operate to shift the risk of injury and liability from one contracting party to another. Yes that is correct, under certain circumstances in situations where a defendant’s negligence may have resulted in a plaintiff’s injury, the right language in a contract between the parties can be utilized to avoid liability and obtain a favorable ruling from a judge. This article will discuss what an exculpatory clause is, the standards by which they are judged, and how courts in Florida interpret those clauses when making decisions regarding liability.
Florida Case Law UpdateFlorida’s Second District Court of Appeal holds Florida’s statutory accident report privilege does not preclude discovery of statements made by individuals involved in the accident for purposes of completed the crash report.
Florida Case Law UpdateTwo Relevant Opinions Regarding the Discovery of Information Related to Non-Party Confidential Information, and an Opinion Noting the Importance of Including All Elements on a Jury Verdict Form
Fourth DCA holds treating physicians internal cost structure information constitutes a confidential trade secret, but defendants could still obtain same in discovery if the parties could negotiate a confidentiality agreement as to the information.
Lake Worth Surgical Center, Inc. v. Crereser Gates et al, 44 Fla. L. Weekly D572a, Fla 4th DCA, February 27, 2019
Plaintiff sued defendants for damages resulting from a car accident between plaintiff and defendant. Plaintiff was treated at a surgical center operated by Lake Worth Surgical Center (“the Surgical Center”), and plaintiff was billed for services related to an arthroscopic knee surgery and supplies.
Recent Florida Fourth DCA Opinions Highlight Importance of Specific Provisions in Agreements to ArbitrationArbitration is a form of alternative dispute resolution in which the parties agree to resolve their case outside of a traditional courtroom by going before an arbitrator who will hear the dispute and issue a binding decision. In most cases arbitration is quicker and less financially costly than litigation, and the proceedings can be kept private. More and more, businesses are choosing to include arbitration agreements within their contracts in order to take advantage of the many benefits.
Florida Supreme Court Rejects Daubert Expert Evidence StandardIn a 4-3 decision, the Florida Supreme Court settled the ongoing uncertainty regarding the Frye vs. Daubert expert evidence standard. The Court determined a 2013 legislative revision to the Florida Evidence Code was unconstitutional and infringed on the Court’s rule-making authority. The result is a clear statement of the so-called Frye standard as the governing analysis for admissibility.
Florida Supreme Court Elaborates on High Standard of Duty Insurers Owe to Insureds & Factors to Consider in Cases of Bad FaithSuzanne Harvey v. GEICO General Insurance Company, 43 Fla. L. Weekly S375a
The critical inquiry in a bad faith claim is whether the insurer diligently, and with the same haste and precision as if it were in the insured’s shoes, worked on the insured’s behalf to avoid an excess judgment. In a 4-3 decision, Florida’s Supreme Court reversed an Appellate Court’s “misapplication” of Florida’s bad faith precedent, concluding the court below erred in holding the evidence was insufficient to show the insurer acted in bad faith in failing to settle the insured’s claim.
Florida Case Law UpdateA Comparison of Recent Opinions Related to Dismissal for Fraud on the Court
An allegation of fraud on the court is a serious accusation, and, if established, can result in sanctions up to, and including, the dismissal of a plaintiff’s claim.
Florida Case Law UpdateMelitina Valiente v. R.J. Behar & Company, Inc. et al.[1]
Third District Court of Appeal, Florida
Opinion filed June 6, 2018[2]
43 Fla. L. Weekly D1277c
In a split opinion, the Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order granting summary judgment for defendants based on the Slavin doctrine.
Background
The Slavin doctrine originated in 1995, from the Florida Supreme Court’s opinion in Slavin v. Kay.[3] Despite its age, Slavin continues to be a staple in certain negligence actions because it provides contractors, architects and engineers, a reasonable defense to liability. The Slavin doctrine relieves a contractor of liability for injuries to third parties when the contractor’s work is complete, the owner of the property accepts the work, and the defect that allegedly caused the injury is patent.[4] The Slavin doctrine presumes the owner made a “reasonably careful inspection” of the contractor’s work, prior to accepting it as complete, and thereby “accepts the defect and the negligence that caused the defect as his own.”[5]