Scott H. Casher

During law school, Scott was a member of the Temple University Law Review. After law school, Scott served as an Assistant District Attorney in the Manhattan District Attorney's Office, where he gained a significant amount of trial experience. Following the Manhattan District Attorney's Office, and before joining White and Williams, Scott was a litigation partner at an AmLaw 100 law firm.

While Scott has won many cases after motions to dismiss, and after sometimes precedent-setting trial or arbitration hearings, he is also very successful at settling cases at an early stage in the litigation. The reality is that over 95% of lawsuits are settled, primarily because litigation is by nature uncertain, disruptive and expensive. Because Scott's adversaries know that he is ready, willing and able to try a case, they often end up settling on terms favorable to Scott's clients — providing them with cost savings and reduced business interruption. At those times when settlement is not reached, Scott is prepared, persistent and tough in the courtroom.

Clients find Scott to be patient, loyal and straight forward with his advice. He is dedicated to his profession and hardworking. Scott genuinely enjoys counseling his clients and making a positive difference in their lives. He also volunteers his time and offers pro bono legal services to several worthy organizations. Scott is a musician, an avid runner, and is married with three children.

• Parron v. Verizon New York, Inc., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86800 (SDNY, May 18, 2018) (granting employer’s motion for summary judgment and dismissing age discrimination and hostile work environment claims), affirmed, Case No. 18-1824 (2d Cir. May 22, 2019)
• Knight v. RECAP, Case No. 10184258 (NYS Div. of Human Rights, Dec. 27, 2018) (after two-day evidentiary hearing, judge dismissed all claims alleging disability, familial status and pregnancy discrimination, finding that employer presented legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons for terminating employment)
• Purcell v. Verizon New York, Inc., Index No. 1200-9588 (NYS Sup. Ct., Erie Co., May 30, 2017) (granting employer’s motion for summary judgment and dismissing reverse gender discrimination claim brought by male employee)
• Fahrenkrug v. Verizon Services Corp., 11-cv-1014 (N.D.N.Y., May 14, 2015), affirmed 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 11048 (2d Cir. N.Y. June 17, 2016) (affirming grant of summary judgment to employer dismissing gender discrimination and retaliation claims)
• James P. Madden, Esq. v. Twin City Fire Insurance Company and The Hartford, Case No. ESX-L-3977-09 (N.J.Super.A.D. Oct. 26, 2015) (granting insurer’s motion to dismiss declaratory judgment action seeking coverage for a legal malpractice claim)
• Davis v. Verizon New York, Inc., 12-cv-00088 (W.D.N.Y., Nov. 6, 2015) (granting employer’s motion for summary judgment and dismissing disability discrimination and retaliation claims)

• Tillman v. Verizon New York, Inc. et al, 118 F. Supp. 3d 515 (E.D.N.Y., July 30, 2015) (granting employer’s motion for summary judgment and dismissing disability discrimination and retaliation claims) 

• Willis v. Verizon New York, Inc., Case No. 11-cv-5078 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 5, 2014) (granting employer’s motion for summary judgment and dismissing race and gender discrimination claims under Title VII, § 1981 and § 1985, as well as state law discrimination and breach of contract claims)

• PNY Technologies, Inc. v. Twin City Fire Ins. Co., 2014 WL 3519074 (D.N.J. Jul 16, 2014), affirmed 2015 WL 3622933 (3^rd Cir. (NJ) June 11, 2015) (granting insurer’s motion for summary judgment and holding that demands by various banks to PNY for payment pursuant to contracts did not qualify as an entity claim for a wrongful act and therefore coverage was not triggered, and claims were otherwise barred by contractual liability exclusion)

• Garofalo v. Verizon New York, Inc., 2012 WL 4838552 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 3, 2012) (granting employer’s motion for summary judgment and dismissing claims of retaliation, hostile work environment and gender and disability discrimination)
• Eisenhandler v. Twin City Fire Ins. Co., et al., Case No. CV 09 5031716-S (Conn. Super. Ct. Oct, 21, 2011), (granting insurer’s summary judgment motion based on the prior knowledge exclusion in a lawyers professional liability policy); represented an insurer that denied coverage for a legal malpractice claim based on a prior knowledge exclusion. The court agreed with our client's denial and granted summary judgment in favor of the insurer
• Modern Technologies Group Inc., et al. v. Twin City Fire Insurance Co., 2010 WL 3908685 (D.N.J. Sept. 30, 2010), (granting insurer’s motion for summary judgment based on late notice of a claim under a claims-made professional liability policy); represented an insurer that obtained an order granting summary judgment in its favor against a limousine parts seller, denying coverage for a claim under a professional liability policy on the basis of late notice
• Russoniello v. Twin City Fire Insurance Co., 2010 WL 2024084 (D.N.J. May 20, 2010) (granting insurer's motion for summary judgment based on late notice of a claim under a lawyers professional liability policy); represented an insurer that obtained an order granting summary judgment in its favor against a solo practitioner, denying coverage for a claim under a lawyers professional liability policy on the basis of late notice; the court held that a letter from the lawyer’s client constituted a claim because it was a demand for money and alleged completely inadequate representation that could be considered malpractice
• Maynard v. Pelican Leisure Sports, Inc. and Marker USA, 2010 WL 3327627 (N.J.Super.A.D. Aug 13, 2010) (affirming trial court order granting motion for direct verdict filed by ski binding manufacturer finding that plaintiff failed to prove manufacturing defect and his expert witness only offered a “net opinion”); represented a ski binding manufacturer that obtained an order after a jury trial granting directed verdict in its favor against a claim of a manufacturing defect
• Executive Risk Indem. Inc. v. Pepper Hamilton LLP, 2008 WL 6808243 (Trial Order) (N.Y.Sup. Jan 29, 2008), rev'd by 56 A.D.3d 196, 865 N.Y.S.2d 25 (1 Dep't Sep 23, 2008), affirmed as modified by 2009 WL 3347222, 2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 07453 (N.Y. Oct 20, 2009) (granting insurers' summary judgment motions on prior notice exclusions in a lawyers professional liability policy); represented an excess insurer that obtained an order granting summary judgment in its favor against a large law firm, denying coverage for a malpractice claim under a lawyers professional liability policy on the ground of a prior knowledge exclusion
• Adams v. Verizon New York, Inc., 2008 WL 2047815 (SDNY 2008) (granting employer’s motion for summary judgment and dismissing claims of race discrimination and breach of contract); represented an employer that obtained an order granting summary judgment in its favor against a claim of race discrimination and breach of contract
• White v. Verizon Communications, Inc., 2008 WL 5382329 (N.D.N.Y. 2008) (granting employer’s motion for summary judgment and dismissing ERISA claims); represented an employer that obtained an order granting summary judgment in its favor against an ERISA claim after long term disability benefits were terminated
• Schwartz v. Twin City Fire Ins. Co. et al., 492 F.Supp.2d 308 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) judgment affirmed by 539 F.3d 135 (2nd Cir.(N.Y.) Aug 19, 2008) (granting primary D&O insurer's post-trial motion to dismiss D&O excess insurers' cross-claims for bad faith); represented an excess insurer whose denial of coverage under a D&O policy was the subject of a bad faith action tried to a jury and successfully concluded by post-trial motions to set aside the verdict
• Indotronix International Corp. v. Twin City Fire Ins. Co., No. 06 Civ. 2688 (S.D.N.Y. April 30, 2007) (finding after inquest on insured's claim for reimbursement of $520,000 incurred in defense costs and expenses, that only $117,000, after application of $100,000 SIR, were reasonable and necessary and therefore recoverable from D&O insurer); represented a D&O insurer that challenged a request by the insured for reimbursement of $520,000 the insured incurred in defense costs and expenses in defending an underlying action; after an inquest before the court, the court denied the insured’s request for reimbursement of $520,000, finding that, after application of a $100,000 SIR, only $117,000 were “reasonable and necessary” and therefore recoverable from the D&O insurer
• National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA v. American Re-Ins. Co., 441 F.Supp.2d 646 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (granting cedent’s motion for summary judgment and awarding cedent reinsurance coverage for an underlying claim); represented an insurance company that settled a number of underlying claims against its insured, and then sought reinsurance coverage for those settlement payments; the reinsurer denied coverage; our client moved for summary judgment, and the court granted its motion, finding that the insurance company was entitled to reinsurance coverage for the underlying settlements
• In re Serio (Frontier Ins. Co. & Commercial Risk Re-Ins. Co.), 2 A.D.3d 264, 769 N.Y.S.2d 530 (1st Dep’t 2003) (affirming order of trial court granting reinsurer's motion to bring a direct action against the New York State Superintendent of Insurance as rehabilitator of insurer, and directing Superintendent to immediate return to the reinsurer funds converted by the insurer in rehabilitation and still in possession of Superintendent); in a case of first impression, successfully prosecuted an appeal on behalf of a reinsurer and secured the return of over one million dollars that was converted by an insolvent insurance company
• Russell v. B&B Industries, 309 A.D.2d 914, 766 N.Y.S.2d 374 (2d Dep’t 2003) (granting company’s motion to dismiss based on plaintiff’s failure to comply with discovery obligations)
• Defended an age discrimination case against a large telecommunications corporation in a trial in New York state court where the judge granted a motion for directed verdict
• Defended a multi-million dollar bad faith claim against an insurer in an arbitration, where the panel only awarded plaintiff breach of contract damages
• Defended a multi-million dollar breach of contract claim against a large apparel manufacturer in a trial in federal court where the jury only awarded plaintiff a nominal sum
• Obtained numerous decisions in favor of employers in labor and employment disputes before administrative agencies and arbitrators