Audrey D. Medd, a seasoned trial attorney, is a senior associate with Russo & Gould. Her practice areas include all aspects of insurance defense in both Connecticut and New York including motor vehicle accidents, premises liability and medical malpractice. Audrey has been practicing law since 2004. She has tried multiple cases to verdict in both New York and Connecticut and was even admitted pro hac vice upon request of a client to try a case in state Court located in Nashua, New Hampshire and NYC office.
Audrey is admitted to the Bar in the State of New York and the State of Connecticut, as well as the United States District Courts of the Southern and Northern District of New York and the District of Connecticut.
Recent notable decisions that Audrey won for clients include:
● Summary Judgment Granted for Defendant, FANELLI v OPPENHEIMER, Supreme Court, Ulster County, Index No.: 3392/19. Won Summary Judgment on behalf of defendant dentist in this fact specific dental malpractice case involving mini dental implants.
● Summary Judgment Granted for Defendant, BARGELLINI v GOTTESFELD, Et. Al., Supreme Court, Westchester County, Index No: 54404/2017. Won Summary Judgment on behalf of defendant physician and his practice in a complicated medical malpractice case which involved a failure to diagnose appendicitis.
Audrey earned her B.A. from University of Delaware and her J.D. from Quinnipiac University School of Law, where she earned the "Excellence in Clinical Work" award. Audrey was also a member of the Mock Trial Society and Moot Court Honor Society and served as a Senator on the Student Bar Association and an Associate Justice on the Quinnipiac University School of Law Judicial Board.
A Hudson Valley, New York native, Audrey now lives in Danbury, CT with her husband, a professional brewer, her dog, Dennis and her cat, Barley. When not in the courtroom, you can find her practicing Yoga, enjoying the craft beer scene, playing around in her craft room with some mixed media, or reading an entertaining book.
In Jackson v. 61 Warwick, LLC, et. al. Audrey secured a judgment without trial for our client in an action where plaintiff alleged mold issues in her apartment caused significant injuries. Audrey successfully challenged the legal sufficiency of the plaintiff''s Complaint through a Motion to Strike. Specifically, Audrey argued that the plaintiff could not maintain a cause of action under Connecticut General Statutes § 47a-7. After argument, Honorable James Abrams, in his well-reasoned decision, agreed with Audrey and held that "[t]he statute itself does not create a private cause of action for the tenant in the event the landlord violates any of the multiple requirements contained in Gen. Stat. § 47a-7," and struck plaintiff''s Complaint in its entirety.
On January 9, 2023, Marie Castronuovo''s motion for summary judgment was granted on behalf of our client in the case of Laura Marks v. Lessings, Inc. This case involved a plaintiff who fell down exterior steps at Whitby Castle, claiming the steps were visually confusing. To establish that the steps were not visually confusing Ms Castronuovo presented the Court with the photos of the steps marked at plaintiff''s deposition which depicted various shades of gray on each step, and a darker landing as well as a white framed threshold. She also argued that plaintiff''s expert failed to identify a Building Code violation and admitted that the steps were well lit. Plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing that the steps were an optical illusion and required a mid-handrail. This was rebutted by Ms. Castronuovo who argued that plaintiff''s expert''s opinion only provided suggestions for making the steps safer and did not identify any Building Code requiring a mid-handrail. She further cited to plaintiff''s testimony that she was looking straight ahead as she exited the building, instead of down at the staircase.
On January 3, 2023, Marie Castronuovo''s motion for summary judgment was granted on behalf of our clients in the case of Brian Crosby v. AJA Turnpike et al. Ms. Castronuovo moved for a dismissal of plaintiff''s Labor Law 200, 240 and 241 claims against various Sonic entities. Plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing that there was an agency relationship between the Sonic entities and the owner of the property and the general contractor on the job. Judge Frank Nervo agreed with Ms. Castronuovo''s argument that no agency relationship existed and that the Sonic entities were not subject to the Labor Law.