Kim Allen Beasley is considered one of the nation’s foremost experts in accessible design. His participation on Federal Advisory Committees, American National Standards Institute Committees, Federal Rulemaking Processes, and his far-reaching innovations in accessible design, has made him an asset to corporations, federal/state agencies, and law firms related to disability matters.
Paul William Danielson, Esq.
826 Orange Avenue
Suite 310
Coronado, CA 92118
203-245-5900
Served as an expert for the plaintiff in a case involving an injury to a veteran resulting in paralysis. A non-compliant ramp in a commercial facility was the focus of the case. Gave deposition in this case. The case was settled out of court. (1997)
Thomas M. Olsen, Esq.
McKirdy and Riskin, PC
136 South Street
Morristown, NJ 07962
973-530-8900
Served as an expert/consultant to the plaintiff who brought legal action against the state of New Jersey concerning a proposed pedestrian bridge. New Jersey eventually agreed to implement a more reasonable solution similar to the recommendations offered in my analysis. (2002)
Niki Kuckes, Esq.
David S. Cohen, Esq.
Miller, Cassidy, Larroca & Lewin
2555 M Street, NW
Washington, DC 20037
202-833 5164
Kuckes & Cohen represented the Paralyzed Veterans of America (PVA) in the MCI Center lawsuit against Abe Polin (owner). At the time, Mr. Beasley was PVA’s Director of Architecture and assisted Koukes & Cohen in matters related to design, and gave a deposition in this case and later testified in the court proceedings. PVA prevailed in this case. (1998)
Anthony J. Brady, Jr., Esq.
1 Alpha Avenue, Suite 36
Voorhees, NJ 08043
Served as an expert for the plaintiff in a case that was similar to the above referenced MCI Center case. The plaintiff prevailed in most aspects of the case. (1997)
Norman Greene, Esq.
Schoeman, Updike & Kaufman, LLP
Attorneys at Law
60 East 42nd Street
New York, NY 10165
212-661-5030
Served as an expert for the plaintiff in a case involving the Federal Fair Housing Amendments Act and related NY City and State regulations. The plaintiff prevailed in most aspects of the case. (2004)