Daniel S. Kuczler is a senior associate in the Deerfield Beach office of Roig Lawyers.
His practice focuses primarily on the litigation of Personal Injury Protection (PIP) claims, and Daniel is responsible for attending pre-trial conferences, motion hearings, depositions, summary judgment hearings, and preparing cases for trial.
Daniel has over ten years of trial experience and is experienced in several practice areas, including property, family, contracts and criminal.
Prior to joining Roig Lawyers, Daniel had his own firm serving clients on the Treasure Coast, where he provided representation regarding matters, including dispute resolution, mediation, pre-suit negotiations, litigation and trial.
Daniel has also been successful at the Appellate level, where he has obtained favorable written opinions from the District Court of Appeals on issues regarding Domestic Violence Injunctions and Unemployment Compensation.
Early in his career, Daniel represented indigent families as a legal services attorney in matters such as Foreclosure, Landlord Tenant, Mobile Homes and Family matters.
The foundation of Daniel’s evidentiary and trial experience was gained through his time as an Assistant State Attorney in the 19th Judicial Circuit. As an ASA, Daniel handled and tried all levels of crimes and obtained jury verdicts regarding drug crimes, aggravated battery, capital sexual battery, kidnapping, and first degree murder.
- Stone v. Stone, drafted Appellant brief.
In Stone, the District Court of Appeal reversed the Trial Courts entry of a Injuction for Protection against Domestic Violence. The Court held that there was insufficient evidence to support the Domestic Violence Injunction.
- Ellis v. Unemployment Appeals Commission.
In Ellis, the District Court of Appeal reversed a Final Order of the Unemployment Appeals Commission dismissing Ellis’ appeal. The Court held that Ellis was entitled to a hearing on whether the late filing of his unemployment appeal was based on the actions of the Unemployment Appeals Commission. Its holding was based on Ellis’ due process rights and fairness concerns.