Advertising Disclosure Email Disclosure
PDF version

Adam C. Calvert

Shareholder
Wall Street Plaza
88 Pine Street, 21st Floor
New York, NY 10005
(212) 376-6414
(212) 376-6490 - Fax
accalvert@mdwcg.com

Adam Calvert is a shareholder in the firm's Casualty Department where he represents clients in the fields of construction injury litigation, retail liability, automobile litigation, trucking and transportation litigation, product liability actions, and amusements, sports and recreation liability.  His clients include retail stores, construction companies, maintenance companies, amusement parks, theaters and product retailers, among other clients.  

Adam has extensive experience representing clients in labor law cases, including those involving Labor Law 240(1) claims. Many of the plaintiffs in these cases allege serious debilitating injuries that prevent them from working again and the settlement demands are often in the multi-million dollar range.  In addition to defending these claims, Adam has also successfully brought third-party actions against subcontractors to defend and indemnify his clients.

He also handles a large amount of retail and premises liability cases.  These cases involve everything from slip and falls to design and construction defects to assaults and inadequate security claims. He regularly works with experts and investigators to present the best defense for his client, but in doing so, he always takes a practical approach to the litigation by not needlessly retaining these experts and always does so with a purpose.

Since joining the firm, Adam has handled many high-exposure cases where the plaintiffs alleged damages have the potential for a seven-figure recovery.  For example, he has handled multi-fatality automobile accidents, construction site falls and traumatic product liability injuries.  In these, and in all of his cases, he conducted site inspections and investigations, conducted all parts of discovery, drafted and argued summary judgment motions, and successfully settled cases at mediation.  Throughout his cases, Adam always works closely with his clients to guide their cases to a successful resolution.  He also prides himself on maintaining good relationships with opposing counsel to avoid needless disputes that waste time and money and do nothing to resolve the case.  

Prior to joining Marshall Dennehey, Adam worked at a New York City law firm where he represented one of the country's largest construction management companies and the area's largest cable television company.

Adam is a graduate of Fordham University School of Law where he was a competitor on the Moot Court Team, the chairman of the Unemployment Action Committee, and a member of the International Law Journal and Federal Litigation Clinic.  He received a Bachelor of Arts from the University of Maryland-College Park.

Significant Representative Matters

  • Successfully defended a Labor Law 240(1) case where the demand was reduced from $750,000 to a settlement of $150,000. The plaintiff was a roofer who fell after improperly using his retractable harness.  The plaintiff suffered debilitating back injuries requiring several surgeries. 

  • Successfully settled a case for a nuisance value where the plaintiff's demand was over $500,000.  The plaintiff alleged that our client negligently built a handicapped ramp.  Neither the plaintiff nor the other codefendants realized that the ramp that the plaintiff fell over had been rebuilt since Adam's client had built the original ramp.  Adam was the only attorney to realize this fact after careful inspection of the ramp with his expert.  When this fact was revealed at mediation, the plaintiff and codefendants were left without any claim against Adam's client, and he was able to obtain an easy settlement. 

  • Obtained a summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff's case against an out-of-possession owner of a building where the plaintiff was injured on an elevator.

  • Obtained a summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff's labor law claims where a pry bar broke, causing a wall to fall on the plaintiff.

  • Obtained a summary judgment and indemnity from a subcontractor on behalf of a construction management company in a case where the plaintiff's settlement demand was over $2,000,000.

  • Obtained summary judgment in the New York State Supreme Court, Kings County. Adam represented a maintenance company that provided management of the janitorial services for the codefendant hospital. The plaintiff was a patient in the hospital who slipped and fell on water outside of her room. Adam was able to have the plaintiff's direct claims dismissed because a contractor does not owe a duty to the plaintiff under the New York Court of Appeals case Espinal v. Melville Snow Contractors. He was also able to have the hospital's cross-claims for contribution and indemnity dismissed because he was able to show that the hospital also had some involvement with maintenance and janitorial services at the hospital.

  • Obtained summary judgment in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York.  Adam represented a grocery store.  The plaintiff testified that she slipped and fell on smashed and dirty vegetables in the frozen food aisle.  She also testified that there were cart tracks near the vegetables.  She argued that this description of the vegetables and cart tracks was sufficient to show constructive notice to the store.  At the beginning of oral argument, the judge commented that he viewed it as a “very close” case.  Adam was ultimately able to convince the court to dismiss the case by arguing that the plaintiff’s description of the vegetables was just as consistent with the plaintiff slipping on the vegetables or someone creating the defect just before the plaintiff’s accident.  Therefore, the court concluded that the plaintiff’s constructive notice argument was speculative and dismissed the case.

  • Successfully settled wrongful death and survival claims for millions less than value suggested by the mediator.  Adam's client allegedly caused a fire at the decedent's home, causing the decedent to suffer severe burns and a three-month hospital stay before she passed away.  Adam performed a site inspection with a cause and origin expert a few days after the fire, coordinated with investigators in obtaining statements from eyewitnesses and the local fire departments, and participated in a mediation that ultimately settled the case.  

  • Adam obtained summary judgment in New York State Supreme Court, Bronx County on behalf of the owner of high-rise residential building that was undergoing a construction project.  The plaintiff worked for a company that would clean each apartment after construction was completed in that particular unit.  The plaintiff was injured and required multiple surgeries after falling from a kitchen counter while cleaning the top of a cabinet.  The main issue in the case was whether the plaintiff’s work qualified for protection under Labor Law 240(1), which imposes absolute liability upon the owner of a construction projects for workers who fall from height.    Based upon a recent Court of Appeals case, Soto v. J. Crew, Inc., 21 N.Y.3d 562 (2013), whether plaintiff was protected rested on 4 factors: (1) whether the work is routine, in that it is done on a recurring basis as part of the ordinary maintenance of the premises; (2) requires neither specialized equipment or expertise; (3) generally involves insignificant elevation risks comparable to those in typical household cleaning; and (4) in light of the core purpose of Labor Law 240(1), to protect construction workers, is unrelated to any ongoing construction project.  There are very few post-Soto decisions.  However, Adam was successful in convincing the court that plaintiff did not qualify for protection of the statute.  The court felt that factors 2 & 3 clearly weighed in favor of the defense and also found relevant plaintiff’s deposition testimony that she performed similar cleaning work in her own home.  In distinguishing the 4th  and final factor, the court  noted that although cleaning was related to the building’s construction, it was a separate phase of the project.  

  • Obtained summary judgment in the New York State Supreme Court, Richmond County on behalf of an amusement park.  The plaintiff claimed that he was injured on a water slide because of an improperly inflated inner-tube. The court found the defendant did not have notice of any alleged inflation issue   based upon plaintiff’s own testimony that he held the tube for 15-20 minutes before the accident without noticing a problem.  The court was further influenced by the fact  that numerous safety checks were performed by the park and that plaintiff could not establish a specific defect with the tube or how the tube’s inflation caused his accident. The court also found that plaintiff’s claims were barred by assumption of the risk,  particularly given the plaintiff’s age (in his 40s) and past experience with water rides.  

Published Works

  • Case Law Alerts, regular contributor, 2017-present

  • "Federal Court Notice Standard in Premises Cases," The New York Law Journal, March 2, 2015

Pro Bono Activities

  • Unemployment Action Center - Chairman

Fraternities/Sororities

  • Phi Kappa Tau

Education

  • Fordham University School of Law, New York, NY (J.D., 2009)

    Honors: Moot Court Board - Spong Competition Team

    Law Journal: International Law Journal

  • University of Maryland, College Park, MD (B.A., 2004)

    Major:  English

Law Alerts July 1, 2018
The New York Court of Appeals decided “a question that has perplexed courts for some time.”; whether a plaintiff must show the absence of their own comparative negligence to obtain partial summary judgment on liability. The court held..., Case Law Alerts, 3rd Quarter, July 2018 Case Law Alerts is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice...
Law Alerts April 1, 2018
The New York Court of Appeals clarified prior opinions regarding disclosure of social media accounts in personal injury actions. Prior precedent stated a party must show that there was relevant material on the social media account by demonstrating..., Case Law Alerts, 2nd Quarter, April 2018 Case Law Alerts is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice...
Law Alerts January 19, 2018
The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed denial of summary judgment to a building owner in a trip and fall case based on allegedly inadequate lighting. The plaintiff died after the accident, but his accident was caught on tape, which was..., Case Law Alerts, 1st Quarter, January 2018 Case Law Alerts is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal...
Law Alerts October 1, 2017
The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed the trial court’s ruling permitting the jury to consider an adverse inference charge if they did not credit the testimony of the defendant’s witness that there was no surveillance..., Case Law Alerts, 4th Quarter, October 2017 Case Law Alerts is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal...
Law Alerts October 1, 2017
The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed summary judgment to the restaurant Olive Garden. The plaintiff tripped and fell in the parking lot outside the restaurant. She tripped on two to three decorative stones that were used in landscaping...,   Case Law Alerts, 4th Quarter, October 2017 Case Law Alerts is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide...
Law Alerts October 1, 2017
The plaintiff allegedly tripped and fell over a damaged piece of tile in an interior hallway while exiting a Catholic church. When determining whether a defect is trivial as a matter of law, the court is required to look at all of the facts..., Case Law Alerts, 4th Quarter, October 2017 Case Law Alerts is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal...
Law Alerts July 1, 2017
The appellate division affirmed the trial court’s decision granting summary judgment to a retail store in a slip-and-fall on water accident. The court’s decision was based on store surveillance, and the corresponding deposition testimony..., Case Law Alerts, 3rd Quarter, July 2017 Case Law Alerts is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice...
Law Alerts April 1, 2017
The appellate division held that a retailer was entitled to summary judgment because the plaintiff could not identify the cause of her fall without engaging in speculation. The defendant pointed to testimony from the plaintiff that she was not sure..., Case Law Alerts, 2nd Quarter, April 2017 Case Law Alerts is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice...
Law Alerts April 1, 2017
The plaintiff allegedly tripped and fell over a carpet at the entrance door to the defendant’s property. The appellate division granted summary judgment to the property owner, finding that the defendant established its prima facie entitlement..., Case Law Alerts, 2nd Quarter, April 2017 Case Law Alerts is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice...
May 11, 2017
Obtained summary judgment on behalf of a dollar store chain in a product liability case. ​The plaintiff was burned over half her body when an allegedly defective potholder, sold by our client, ignited while she was getting a pan out of her oven. The...
Aug 25, 2016
Marshall Dennehey attorneys successfully argued the appeal of a summary judgment motion before the Appellate Division, First Department, affirming the trial court's order granting summary judgment to its client. We represented the owner of a...
January 3, 2018
Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin announced today that 14 associates and one special counsel have been elevated to shareholder, with 60 percent of the new shareholder class comprised of women. In Philadelphia, the new shareholders are: Lawrence J. Bartel, shareholder in the firm's...
September 21, 2017
Five attorneys from the Manhattan office of Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin and one from the firm's Mount Laurel, New Jersey office, have been selected to the 2017 edition of New York Metro Super Lawyers magazine. A Thomson Reuters business, Super Lawyers is a rating service of...
September 22, 2016
Six attorneys from the Manhattan office of Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin have been selected to the 2016 edition of New York Metro Super Lawyers magazine. A Thomson Reuters business, Super Lawyers is a rating service of lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a...
October 6, 2015
Six attorneys from the New York offices of Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin have been recognized in the 2015 edition of New York Metro Super Lawyers magazine. A Thomson Reuters business, Super Lawyers is a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have...

Education

  • Fordham University School of Law (J.D., 2009)
  • University of Maryland (B.A., 2004)

Bar Admissions

  • New York, 2009
  • U.S. District Court Southern District of New York, 2010
  • U.S. District Court Eastern District of New York, 2010

Honors & Awards

  • New York Metro Super Lawyer Rising Star, 2015-2017

Year Joined Organization: 2012

Before you send this email please note:

You are attempting to send email, through a link on our website, to an attorney of Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin or an employee in our firm. Please note that your email may not be treated as confidential and does not create an attorney-client relationship. You should not rely upon the transmission of an email through this website if you are seeking to enter into such a relationship. Until such time as we have agreed to represent you, no information in your email will be treated as confidential. Please contact us directly by telephone at 1.800.220.3308 if it is your intent to seek legal counsel with our firm or convey confidential information.

If it is still your intent to send this email, knowing that it may not be treated as confidential, you may accept our terms of agreement by pressing "OK". If you choose not to accept these terms of agreement you may navigate away from this page by pressing "Cancel."