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 UpdateHighland Stucco and Lime Products, Inc. v. Silverio Onorato et al.
43 Fla. L. Weekly D2579a (Fla. 3d DCA, November 21, 2018).
The defendant Highland Stucco and Lime Products, Inc. (“Highland”) appealed an order denying its motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. On review, the Third District Court of Appeals reversed the order because the plaintiffs, Silverio Onorato (“Onorato”) and Faye Onorato (collectively, “the plaintiffs”) failed to satisfy the “minimum contacts” federal constitutional due process requirement. [1] The opinion provides an opportunity to review and discuss the procedural requirements that must be met by a plaintiff in Florida seeking to satisfy personal jurisdiction over a defendant.
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]
Florida Case Law UpdateTHEME: DETAILS
The cases referenced in this month’s Florida Case Law Update all deal with the importance of details.
Florida Case Law UpdatePublix Supermarkets, Inc. v. Jessie Bellaiche
43 Fla. L. Weekly D673a, March 28, 2018
The Third District Court of Appeal reversed plaintiff’s $1.5 million slip-and-fall verdict, holding that a jury may not stack inferences to determine that a party had actual knowledge of a dangerous condition, nor is the mere possibility of causation sufficient to establish liability.
Florida Case Law UpdateRemittitur of Excessive Future Damages
WAL-MART Stores, Inc. v. Derrick Thornton (43 Fla. L Weekly D521a)
A Broward County Plaintiff sued for damages resulting from a slip-and-fall accident. At trial, a verdict in favor of the Plaintiff was rendered and damages were awarded for injuries sustained, including $150,000 for future medical costs. Following the trial, Wal-Mart filed a Motion for Remittitur, arguing the damages awarded was excessive in light of the facts presented, which the trial court denied.
The Rebuttable Presumption of Negligence in Rear-End Motor Vehicle Collisions in FloridaFlorida law provides a rebuttable presumption of negligence that attaches to the rear driver in a rear-end motor vehicle collision case.[1] This presumption can be a valuable tool in the litigation and/or resolution of motor vehicle accident claims involving rear-end collisions, however it is not absolute. The presumption of negligence on part of the defendant driver who rear-ends the plaintiff driver is not a substantive rule of law that supersedes Florida’s comparative negligence system of tort recovery. Rather, it is an evidentiary tool imposed by decisional law to facilitate a particular type of negligence case. Applicable where the evidence is insufficient to create a jury question on the relevant issues of fault.[2]