NYC building owner attempts to avoid $35M verdict by covertly recording victim

In recent developments, a New York City building owner has taken an unusual approach to avoid a hefty $35 million payout to former JPMorgan analyst Meghan Brown, who alleged that a glass door incident left her with severe brain damage. Court filings reveal that the building’s lawyers are now arguing that new video surveillance of Brown over nine months portrays her claims of incapacitation as fraudulent.

Christopher Theobalt, the attorney for 271 Madison Co, representing the Madison Avenue building, contended that rarely is such a significant farce captured on video and official documents. They are pressing for the dismissal of the $35.2 million verdict based on the new evidence they obtained through surveillance.

In response, Brown’s lawyer, Tom Moore, dismissed the building owner’s tactics as “utter desperation.” Though Brown initially sought an $80 million payout, Moore remains confident that their position will prevail, despite the building’s efforts to undermine Brown’s credibility.

The case dates back to March 2015, when Brown experienced a traumatic incident at 271 Madison Ave. As a result, a jury held the building’s owners responsible for her injuries, which led to her dismissal as a banking analyst at JPMorgan and impacted her ability to engage in daily activities. Brown testified during the trial that the incident had eroded her ability to trust her brain, a significant struggle she has to contend with daily.

Following the controversial $35.2 million verdict, the building owners embarked on an extensive surveillance operation in Florida, where Brown now operates a gelato business. The field investigation uncovered footage that contradicted Brown’s testimony, showing her engaging in activities she had alleged she was incapable of doing during trial proceedings.

The videos captured Brown navigating traffic, working extended hours at the gelato shop, using a tricycle without a helmet, and performing tasks she claimed to be physically unable to do. Moreover, the investigators observed her single-handedly managing the gelato shop’s operations, even for extended periods during events and functions.

The building’s lawyers criticized Brown’s testimony, citing evidence that she had misrepresented her business operations and her physical capabilities. Despite the building’s attempts to portray Brown as deceitful, Moore maintained that she had been forthcoming about the intermittent nature of her limitations.

While the building’s legal team questioned the authenticity of Brown’s disclosures during the trial, Moore argued that Brown’s persistence in managing the gelato business indicated her dedication to overcoming her challenges. The lawyers also alleged that Brown misled the court about the reasons for her termination from JPMorgan, pointing to conflicting testimonies in separate proceedings.

In light of these developments, the legal battle intensifies as both parties present their arguments, seeking to uphold their positions in what has become a complex and contentious case.