Katz, Pryor & DiCuccio, LLP

Steven Katz made my lawsuit process smooth and as stress free as possible. He was knowledgeable ,responsive and handled every detail with care and compassion. I especially appreciated his professionalism and informativeness throughout. Thank you so much Steven for all of your help, I am eternally grateful to have this behind me and that I found the perfect guy for the job !! Highly recommend !!!!

We highly recommend Attorney Steven Katz to all family and friends.

He is a very gifted and competent litigator.

I had an excellent experience working with Katz DiCuccio LLP. Steve Katz is a highly skilled and proactive attorney who gets results. He’s very communicative, professional, and consistently keeps you informed on next steps. His attention to detail and commitment to his clients truly stand out. I highly recommend Steve Katz and the entire Katz DiCuccio LLP team for anyone seeking reliable and effective legal representation.

I reached out to Steve Katz during non-business hours to seek his legal advice. Steve devoted his time and attention to me, in fact at very late hours of the night. Although the case was not the type of law he practices, he offered me trusted legal advice as well as he personally put me in touch with several referrals. I highly recommend Steve as he is knowledgeable, very responsive and professional!

I worked with Steven Katz on an unjust enrichment case, which was particularly challenging due to the lack of a formal contract. From the start, he was upfront about our chances while being thorough in his approach. I know he also consulted with his colleagues at certain points throughout the case, which made me feel I had the support of multiple people.

Before filing, he tried multiple settlement attempts - emails, calls, texts, and two formal demand letters. I was willing to accept flexible payment terms - even just $200/month on the $10k owed, but the other party ignored all attempts at resolution.

Steve explained the legal issues to me as they came up throughout the case. I felt like he knew nuances of the legal process that were helpful, like which judges would be good or bad for us (fortunately we got a judge that he believed was fair). The deposition went well for us and increased our chances to 50/50 odds (from initially 5-10% depending on which judge we might get). He recognized the significance of damaging admissions the defendant made during deposition, while the opposing counsel seemed to struggle with this - they seemed to think that they were guaranteed to win because there was no contract.

Steve noted the other side was not accurately assessing the legal issues and missing the weaknesses in their own case, which is probably why they continued to fight us. He told me that in a mediation session, the other lawyer kept making arguments that didn't make sense, even after Steve mentioned the exact legal arguments that we would be making to try to reach a resolution. After several months of motions, conferences, and ongoing case work, trial day finally arrived. The judge initially tried to get us to settle and meet in the middle. Steve advised me that if I went against what the judge wanted, the judge wouldn't like that and we would pretty much lose because of it. But at that point I felt like we had already come a long way and it wasn't about the money anymore, so I prepared myself to accept whatever would happen if we proceeded to the trial.

At the trial, Steve’s strategy was to address the weaknesses in our case head-on, rather than to hide them. The defendant had basically changed his story, so Steve asked a series of questions that got the defendant to contradict his earlier deposition testimony, make damaging admissions, then try to backtrack when he realized what he'd said hurt his case. The defendant sounded evasive and contradictory when answering important questions. Steve told me later that the judge kept looking over during that part of the questioning like he was very interested in the defendant’s responses.

As we were waiting for the decision, Steve explained it came down to whether the judge thought it would be “fair” for the defendant to keep the money given the circumstances. He had some hope we could win after seeing the defendant's poor performance, and said a same-day ruling would be good for us because he felt like with the arguments made the judge should have to at least think about it if he was going to rule in their favor.

Every case is different and outcomes will depend on many factors, but he explained things to me so I had an idea of what to expect as the case developed. The judge decided in our favor after around 15 minutes of deliberation the same day, which rarely happens. I think the questions Steve asked during the deposition led to admissions that became crucial to our case, and we may not have had enough evidence to win without those specific responses. I felt lucky he handled my case and believe the outcome would probably have been different with another attorney. I felt like he asked just the right questions and had a very clear mind during the questioning.