.

Nicholas P. Chrysanthem

Shareholder

NPChrysanthem@mdwcg.com

Portrait of Nicholas P. Chrysanthem

Nicholas is a member of the Professional Liability Department where his practice is focused on the representation of law firms, attorneys, employers and agents and brokers, in state and federal courts.

An experienced trial attorney and litigator for over 30 years, Nicholas defends clients in matters involving legal malpractice, employment litigation, real estate litigation, complex commercial litigation, ADA public accommodation and ADA class action litigation. Nicholas has experience practicing before the New York State Division of Human Rights and the New York City Human Rights Commission. He has also been retained by clients to consult on risk avoidance matters and as a trial expert. Nicholas has lectured on evidence and trial practice at various continuing legal education seminars.

Nicholas has significant experience defending owners and contractors in actions arising out of New York Labor Law and New York Industrial Code violations. His experience in litigating commercial and tort disputes provides clients with the ability to understand a variety of underlying matters that are often the basis of legal malpractice actions.

Nicholas graduated with his Bachelor of Arts in Communication Arts from Iona College in 1982. In 1988, he earned his juris doctor from Fordham University School of Law and received the American Jurisprudence Award in Torts.

Prior to joining Marshall Dennehey, Nicholas was a member of a New York firm where he focused his practice on the defense of law firms and attorneys in legal malpractice actions, commercial and corporate litigation, and cases brought under New York’s Labor Law.

    • Fordham University School of Law (J.D., 1988)
    • Iona University (B.A., 1982)
    • New York, 1989
    • New Jersey, 1988
    • U.S. District Court District of New Jersey
    • U.S. District Court Eastern District of New York
    • U.S. District Court Southern District of New York
    • U.S. Court of Appeals 2nd Circuit
    • New York Metro Super Lawyers (2021-2026)
    • American Bar Association, Trial Evidence Committee; Employment Law Section; Tort Trial and Insurance Practice Section; and Section of Litigation
    • DRI, Employment and Labor Law Section, Professional Liability Section, and Commercial Litigation Section
    • New York State Bar Association, Law Practice Management Committee 2013-Present, Labor and Employment Law Section
    • New York Trial Notebook Editorial Advisory Board, 2005
    • Professional Responsibility, Columbia University School of Law, Guest Speaker,  June 2021
    • Employment Law Seminar, ACEC, Albany, New York, Presenter, January 2019
    • Legal Malpractice: How to Avoid it, What to do If You Can't, Lecturer 
    • Legal Malpractice and Ethics, Brooklyn Law School, Solo Practice Seminar, Lecturer
    • ESI For Dummies, What Every Legal Team Should Know, The Lawyers Guide to ESI Forensics 101, New York State Bar Association, Moderator 
    • Obtained summary judgment in a legal malpractice case alleging failure to properly cancel a real estate contract and alleging loss of a $175,000 security deposit and unspecified loss of opportunity income.
    • Successfully had a pre-answer motion to dismiss granted. The plaintiff, a practicing attorney, sued our client, an insurance broker, alleging that she was an additional insured under an insurance policy for her contractor, who ruined her kitchen. The motion was granted unopposed.
    • Successfully had a motion to dismiss a legal malpractice case pre-answered granted. The plaintiff used our client as an attorney because his associate neglected to oppose a threshold motion in the underlying auto case. The underlying court granted that motion in-part and denied it, in-part. The plaintiff retained a new attorney without firing our client. The new attorney commenced a malpractice action against our client and refused to substitute as attorney of record in the underlying action. We moved to dismiss the case on a number of issues pre-answer, but primarily because it was premature and the plaintiff could not prove that but for the failure to oppose the motion, he would have prevailed in overcoming the threshold.
    • Successfully had a pre-answer motion to dismiss granted as the court declined to apply supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. Plaintiffs commenced this action against our client for violation §1983 and other state law tort and discrimination claims. Our motion to dismiss the first complaint was granted and plaintiffs were given the opportunity to amend, which they did. We moved to dismiss the amended complaint pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6), which was granted by the court.
    • Was granted a motion to dismiss a legal malpractice case where the plaintiff claimed that the settlement she entered into at trial was the result of our client not being prepared. Plaintiff allocuted on the record, yet she claimed, in opposition to our motion to dismiss that she had a condition that forced her to answer “yes” instead of “no” when she is under stress. Plaintiff submitted a note from a psychiatrist that backed up her claim. We successfully argued that the plaintiff was properly allocuted on the record before the court. The presiding judge asked the questions and determined that her condition was manufactured subsequent to her allocution.  We convinced the judge that if a client could make up a condition because she was unhappy with a settlement, there would be no more settlements.
    • Successfully obtained dismissal on a Rule 12(b)(6) pre-answer motion to dismiss of a 42 U.S.C. §1983 civil rights case against our clients. Plaintiff claimed that our clients acted under color of state law in having her arrested for harassment. Plaintiff alleged various causes of action for false arrest, abuse of process, malicious prosecution, conspiracy, and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress. The court rejected plaintiff’s claims even though our client was a retired police officer with significant contracts with the police department and DA’s office.
    • Obtained defense verdict after jury trial in U.S. Dist. Court, S.D.N.Y in the matter of Flushing Bank v. AGCS Marine Insurance Company, 16-CV-2638 (RJS) in breach of contract action arising out of a claim by a loss payee.
    • Obtained Multiple "No Probable Cause" determinations from New York State Division of Human Rights in favor of Employer-Clients
    • Obtained favorable resolutions of Federal ADA Class Action lawsuits
    • Obtained pre-answer dismissal of adversary proceeding against law firm-client arising out of underlying bankruptcy proceeding
    • Obtained a defense verdict after a five-day jury trial in a legal malpractice action arising out of an underlying divorce case
    • Obtained reversal of a denial of summary judgment from the New York Appellate Division, Second Department in a legal malpractice action
    • Obtained voluntary dismissal with prejudice of action against attorneys based on underlying commercial real estate matter
    • Obtained favorable result in complex software copyright infringement case
    • Obtained reversal of a decision re-instating a lead poisoning case after dismissal from the New York Appellate Division, Second Department
    • Obtained favorable settlement including millions of dollars' worth of real estate in connection with resolution of complex shareholder litigation

Thought Leadership

View all

Legal Updates for Lawyers' Professional Liability

Legal Updates for Lawyers’ Professional Liability - CASE LAW UPDATE

February 1, 2025

An attorney cannot be liable for failing act outside the scope of the retainer agreement. Kohler v. Polsky, 219 AD3d 821, 822 (2d Dept 2023) The plaintiff had retained the defendant-attorney for representation in a workers’ compensation claim. The retainer agreement explicitly excluded the possibility that the defendant was representing him in other types of claims.  The plaintiff alleged the defendant committed malpractice by failing to advise him of potential personal injury claims against other third parties. The defendant subsequently moved for summary judgment, arguing that advising the plaintiff of potential personal injury actions was beyond the scope of the retainer agreement.  Looking to Rule 1.2(c) of the Rules of Professional Conduct, the court noted that a lawyer cannot be liable for failing act outside the scope of their retainer.    Legal Updates for Lawyers’ Professional Liability – February 2025 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. We would be pleased to provide such legal assistance as you require on these and other subjects when called upon. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1 Copyright © 2025 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints or inquiries, or if you wish to be removed from this mailing list, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.

Legal Updates for Lawyers' Professional Liability

Legal Updates for Lawyers’ Professional Liability - CASE LAW UPDATE

February 1, 2025

Venue and Retainer Agreements  Price v. Kohn, Swift & Graf, P.C., 24-CV-04720 (JMW), 2024 WL 4528928 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 18, 2024) In this case, argued by Nicholas P. Chrysanthem of tour New York City and Long Island offices, the plaintiff filed a myriad of claims that mainly sounded in legal malpractice.  After the plaintiff’s meditation business attracted the attention of the FBI for, inter alia, forced labor, the plaintiff retained the defendants for representation in the criminal proceedings. The retainer agreement contained a forum selection clause for Philadelphia. The plaintiff unsuccessfully attempted to argue the retainer agreement was procured by fraud. Accordingly, the court transferred the action to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.    Legal Updates for Lawyers’ Professional Liability – February 2025 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. We would be pleased to provide such legal assistance as you require on these and other subjects when called upon. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1 Copyright © 2025 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints or inquiries, or if you wish to be removed from this mailing list, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.

News

View all

Firm Highlights

Marshall Dennehey Shareholders Recognized as Florida Trend Legal Elite Notable Women Leaders in Law

News

Marshall Dennehey Shareholders Recognized as Florida Trend Legal Elite Notable Women Leaders in Law

Thought Leadership

Two Tracks, No Preclusion: Ohio Supreme Court Preserves Separate Damages Claims After Chapter 2506 Appeals

The Supreme Court of Ohio has clarified that an administrative appeal under Ohio Revised Code Chapter 2506 does not bar a separate action for damages and declaratory relief that could not have been pursued in the administrative appeal. The Ohio Supreme Court considered Sheetz, Inc. v. Centerville (2026-Ohio-3531) as a result of a certified question from the Southern District of Ohio. The question was whether Sheetz, the gas station/convenience store brand, was barred from seeking damages in a separate action since damages were not sought in their administrative appeal. Ultimately, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that res judicata does not bar a separate action for damages after ruling on an administrative appeal because R.C. Chapter 2506 is limited to judicial review and cannot grant affirmative relief. The case arose after Centerville’s city council rejected a site plan proposed by Sheetz, Inc. that had received unanimous approval from the City’s planning commission. Sheetz filed an administrative appeal pursuant to R.C. 2506 in the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas, and two months later filed a complaint for damages and declaratory relief under 42 USC § 1983 as a takings action with the city, city council, and other objectors as improper takings and a violation of due process, as well as interference with business and contractual relationship. The city and city council removed the § 1983 action for damages to federal court. Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas reversed the city council’s denial, and allowed the Sheetz project to move forward. Upon that ruling, the federal court issued a show-cause order questioning whether the § 1983 action was barred by the doctrine of res judicata via claim preclusion (which includes all theories of recovery).  Sheetz argued that Ohio courts of common pleas do not have authority to award damages or declaratory relief as party of the R.C. Ch. 2506 appeal, therefore res judicata could not be triggered to apply to the § 1983 action. Additionally, Sheetz moved to certify the issue to the Ohio Supreme Court, citing differing results between the second and sixth districts on this same issue. Centerville approached the question, not from a claim preclusion standpoint, but from the holding in Grava v. Parkman, Twp which states that a final judgment rendered on the merits bars all subsequent action based on the same transaction or occurrence.  In yet another approach, an objector argued that claim preclusion was satisfied because Sheetz could have raised its damages claims in the administrative appeal – Sheetz disagrees. In their analysis, the Supreme Court of Ohio broke down the elements of a claim preclusion analysis: 1) a prior final, valid decision on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction; (2) a second action involving the same parties, or their privies, as the first; (3) a second action raising claims that were or could have been litigated in the first action; and (4) a second action arising out of the transaction or occurrence that was the subject matter of the previous action. The Court held that R.C. Ch. 2506 does not permit a party to argue damages as R.C. Ch. 2506 limits the common pleas jurisdiction as if it were sitting on appeal, and therefore can only affirm, reverse, vacate, or modify the appealed order, or can remand the case to the administrative body. Further, the Court held that Grava’s conclusion that a final judgment precludes additional litigation for different relief is inapplicable under this fact pattern because it was meant only to apply to those matters in which the plaintiff brings the exact same case twice, but for new relief. The Court found Grava was inapplicable because Sheetz could have requested damages or declaratory relief in the R.C. 2506 appeal. Therefore, Grava would be nothing more than dicta if it even did apply. Going further, the Ohio Supreme Court disavowed Sixth Circuit precedent which, in reliance on Grava and other district court decisions, permitted an owner to seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alongside an administrative appeal. See Moore v Hiram Twp., 988 F.3d 353 (6th Cir.2021). The Ohio Supreme Court found that the Sixth Circuit had disregarded a critical decision in Community Concerned Citizens, Inc. v. Union Twp. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 1993-Ohio-115, which clearly held that a R.C. Ch. 2506 appeal cannot be combined with a complaint seeking other claims for relief. Id. at ¶ 11. To that end, the Ohio Supreme Court has determined that the decisions Moore relied on (outside of Grava) are no longer good law, and that Moore was wrongly decided. The decision draws a clear procedural boundary: Chapter 2506 provides judicial review of an administrative decision, not a forum for independent claims seeking affirmative relief. Although Grava may place claims arising from a single transaction within the potential scope of claim preclusion, those claims are not barred unless the complete claim-preclusion test is satisfied. Because Sheetz could not have pursued damages or declaratory relief in its Chapter 2506 appeal, the separate action was not precluded. The remaining question for practitioners looking to apply or defend against this exception is when does the statute of limitations begin to run on damages and declaratory relief claims related to an administrative decision on appeal? A takings action in federal court has a 2-year statute of limitations, or as a state claim, 4 years (like the other tortious claims raised therein). Correlating this case with others, an administrative appeal will not likely toll the statute of limitations on claims based on a final decision by a municipal authority. Therefore, practitioners should look for these cases to be brought simultaneously.

Marshall Dennehey Welcomes Special Counsel David Farkouh and Michele P. Rannie to New York City Office

News

Marshall Dennehey Welcomes Special Counsel David Farkouh and Michele P. Rannie to New York City Office

Defense Victory Obtained in Workers’ Compensation Case

Result

Defense Victory Obtained in Workers’ Compensation Case

Thought Leadership

Pennsylvania Supreme Court to Review Whether Legal Malpractice Claims May Be Recast as Breach of Contract Claims

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently granted allowance of appeal to consider whether a plaintiff may pursue a breach of contract claim against an attorney based on allegations that the attorney failed to provide competent legal services. The issue is significant in professional liability litigation because it concerns whether a plaintiff may avoid the statute of limitations applicable to professional negligence claims by characterizing the alleged misconduct as a breach of contract. Antoine Poteat retained attorneys Gary Asteak and Nino V. Tinari to represent him in a criminal matter. After his conviction was subsequently overturned through a Post Conviction Relief Act proceeding, Poteat filed suit against his former attorneys alleging that they breached their retainer agreements by failing to provide competent legal services. The attorneys argued that the claims sounded in professional negligence, rather than breach of contract, and were therefore time-barred. The trial court dismissed Poteat’s complaint, but the Superior Court, sitting en banc, reversed. The Superior Court held that the gist-of-the-action doctrine did not bar Poteat’s breach of contract claim because the alleged failure to provide competent legal services could constitute a breach of the parties’ agreement. The Court further held that a legal-services agreement contains an implied duty requiring an attorney to provide competent legal services, even where the agreement does not contain an express provision requiring such services. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted review in July 2026 and will consider whether the Superior Court’s decision conflicts with Pennsylvania precedent distinguishing contract and tort claims, including Bruno v. Erie Insurance Co. The Supreme Court will also address whether a plaintiff may maintain a breach of contract claim based on an implied duty to provide competent legal services without identifying a specific contractual provision that was breached. The Supreme Court’s decision could have significant implications for professional liability litigation in Pennsylvania, particularly where plaintiffs seek to characterize claims arising from alleged professional negligence as contractual claims.

Event

CLM 2026 Focus Conference

Allison joins three insurance industry leaders to discuss how cyber coverage disputes, the growing impact of social inflation on bodily injury claim valuation, and the use of artificial intelligence are reshaping the bad faith landscape. The panel will examine emerging sources of extra-contractual exposure, including evolving cyber insurance coverage issues and the challenges of accurately valuing bodily injury claims. Practical approaches to claim evaluation using AI, along with defense strategies designed to help prevent or successfully defend against bad faith litigation, will also be addressed. 

Thought Leadership

The Search-Incident-to-Arrest Doctrine Does Not License Strip Searches

In Beatty v. Gardner, No. 25-2860 (3d Cir. Sept. 16, 2026), Kyle Beatty sued police officers Clinton Gardner and Calvin Irvin under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 after they stopped, arrested, and searched him three times during a drug investigation in Williamsport, Pennsylvania. The officers initially smelled marijuana coming from the car in which Beatty was sitting and observed marijuana residue, giving them probable cause to arrest him. Beatty consented to the first pat-down, and the second search was conducted incident to his lawful arrest; neither search uncovered weapons or contraband. The officers then transported Beatty to the police station solely to strip-search him, but the strip search also revealed nothing. The District Court granted the officers summary judgment, concluding that the initial stop, arrest, and first two searches were reasonable and that qualified immunity protected the officers from liability for the strip search. The Third Circuit affirmed, but held that the strip search itself violated the Fourth Amendment. The court concluded that the search-incident-to-arrest doctrine does not automatically permit officers to strip-search an arrestee outside the jail or prison setting. Because strip searches are highly intrusive and the traditional justifications for searches incident to arrest (officer safety and preservation of evidence) did not justify the search of Beatty, the officers generally needed either the arrestee’s consent, exigent circumstances, or a warrant supported by probable cause to believe that a search beneath the clothing would reveal weapons, contraband, or evidence. Here, the officers had none of those justifications. Nevertheless, the court held that qualified immunity barred damages liability because, at the time of the search, the right against a warrantless strip search of an arrestee outside the institutional setting was not clearly established by Supreme Court or Third Circuit precedent. The court likewise upheld qualified immunity on Beatty’s First Amendment retaliation claim and affirmed summary judgment for the officers.

Complete Victory Obtained in a Workers’ Compensation Matter

Result

Complete Victory Obtained in a Workers’ Compensation Matter

MD Selected a 2027 Best Law Firm in Multiple Practice Areas by Best Lawyers

News

Marshall Dennehey Named a 2027 Best Law Firm in Multiple Practice Areas by Best Lawyers®

business meeting photo

Result

Summary Judgment Obtained in Insurance Coverage Case