.

Peter S. Read

Co-Chair, New York Construction and Labor Law Practice

PSRead@mdwcg.com

Portrait of Peter S. Read

Peter is the co-chair of the New York Labor Law Construction Practice. He has spent his career defending owners and contractors in construction accident cases involving the New York Labor Law and Industrial Code and indemnification and insurance claims.

With more than 20 years of litigation and trial experience, Peter has defended property owners, managers and security companies in premises liability cases involving catastrophic personal injuries, property damage and business loss. Additionally, he is experienced in the defense of cases involving wrongful death, product liability, lead-based paint exposure and appellate practice in all areas. Pete also handles litigation in cases involving elevators, escalators, moving walkways, electronic doorways, cranes and lifts.

Peter has extensive experience handling fire cases, defending property owners, public utilities, all manner of product liability defendants and construction contractors in cases involving catastrophic injuries and death allegedly as a result of products such as tools and equipment, household appliances, defective auto batteries and gas explosions leading to commercial and residential fires.

Peter has tried many cases throughout New York City as well as Nassau, Suffolk, Westchester and Duchess Counties with a remarkable rate of success including a number of defense verdicts.

    • Brooklyn Law School (J.D., 1993)
    • Loyola University Maryland (B.A., 1990)
    • New York, 1994
    • U.S. District Court Southern District of New York, 2007
    • New York County Trial Lawyers Association
    • New York State Bar Association

  • Obtained summary judgment dismissing all third-party claims against a local specialty contractor in a Brooklyn construction accident matter. The Court rejected claims for contractual indemnification and failure to procure insurance, finding that an unsigned work proposal and estimate did not constitute an enforceable contract and contained no indemnification or insurance procurement obligations. The Court also dismissed contribution claims after finding that the contractor neither owned the property nor supervised, controlled, or performed any work at the project site, having fully subcontracted the scope of work to another entity.

    Defense verdict for a private security company in an action for negligent security at a NYC homeless shelter.

    Defense verdict for a major gas distribution company in a case involving severe personal injuries allegedly caused by condition of utility construction site.

    Defense verdict on grounds of permissive use for a gas pipeline company in a case involving catastrophic injuries sustained by ATV driver over pipeline right of way.

    Defense verdict for New York City marshal in a case for extensive property conversion.

    Defense verdict for a national soccer camp company in an auto case involving question of scope of employment.

    Obtained summary judgment, affirmed on appeal, for security company in a case involving claims for severe personal injuries from gun shots on grounds  of standard and duty of care owed to plaintiff.

    Obtained summary judgment, affirmed on appeal, for gas distribution company on grounds of proximate cause in case involving a house explosion and severe burn injuries.

Results

View all

Summary Judgment for Plumbing Contractor in Construction Defect Case

We obtained dismissal of the plaintiff’s complaint and all cross claims against our client, a commercial plumbing contractor, on a motion for summary judgment in a construction defect case. ​The case involved claims by a homeowners association for property damage and replacement costs allegedly in excess of $6 million as a result of construction defects in the design and installation of plumbing, water collection, drainage, grading, and other water runoff and drainage systems. In addition to our client, the named defendants were the project architects, the general contractor, various plumbing, electric, concrete and grading trades, and the water and electric utilities, all of whom asserted cross claims. We were granted summary judgment on grounds that the plaintiff’s breach of contract claim failed due to lack of privity and proof that the plaintiff was not a third-party beneficiary of our subcontract. All claims and cross claims for negligent installation/breach of warranty were dismissed upon proof that our client’s work was performed in accord with project specs and in accord with the applicable building code, and that none of its work contributed to any drainage issues or resulting property damage.

Thought Leadership

View all

Defense Digest

On The Pulse… New York Construction and Labor Law Practice Group. Knowing the Industry From the Inside Out

January 29, 2021

Marshall Dennehey’s New York Construction and Labor Law Practice Group is comprised of a team of attorneys led by trial-tested partners, who each have decades of experience handling the most complex construction-site accident cases in the five boroughs of New York City and throughout the state. From issues involving contractual indemnification and insurance coverage, including owner-controlled and contractor-controlled wrap-up insurance programs, to the ever-evolving application of Labor Law 240, the infamous “Scaffold Law,” our attorneys remain at the forefront of this practice. We represent clients across the entire spectrum of the construction industry, from architects and engineers to public and private building owners and developers, general contractors, construction managers, environmental and site safety consultants, and all manner of subcontractor trades. Our cases arise out of all aspects of the construction industry. They include claims involving excavation, shoring, demolition, crane, and heavy machinery operation in industrial, commercial and residential projects. We bring to this practice more than just our legal expertise. Our attorneys have a variety of practical experience in and around the construction industry, such as employment in a family custom home construction company that has been in business on Long Island for the past 48 years; a former labor crew union member for a hotel construction company; employment with a developer building ski vacation homes; and even a licensed amateur radio operator with experience in the construction of antennae and other component parts. So armed, our attorneys are fully versed in the full range of construction business practices, the roles of management and field personnel, and record-keeping protocols and procedures. Our attributes yield a cost-efficient defense strategy that we are ready to implement at a moment’s notice. Our proactive and aggressive approach enables us to anticipate issues and potential problems with ready and creative solutions—whenever and wherever our clients need us. That means we are ready for immediate response to an accident scene. Since we are fully familiar with the complexity of construction sites, our experienced attorneys are ready and able to navigate sites to coordinate post-accident investigation in order to determine which trades and equipment are involved, identify and interview witnesses to the accident and individuals with knowledge relevant to the defense, and ensure the preservation of evidence. A recent case illustrates how our background and experience translates into immediate results. The case involved a worker injured on the roof of a building under construction. As soon as we received the case assignment, we responded to the scene, determined exactly where and how the accident had occurred, and what type of work was involved. Knowing exactly what we needed in terms of records, we then immediately contacted our client and obtained the relevant construction documents that established that the client did not perform the type of work that produced the injury and that they did not perform any work at the location of the accident. We sent the documents to plaintiff’s counsel with a proposed stipulation of discontinuance and advised that we were otherwise ready to file a motion to dismiss calling for sanctions. The stipulation of discontinuance, with prejudice, of the claim against our client was signed within two weeks of our request. It is this mindset and expertise that we take into every case assignment. On this point, we fully understand, and are ever mindful, that the interests of our clients and their insurers are most often best served by effectuating a swift and efficient transfer of their risk through either contractual indemnification or on the basis of additional insured status, and so each and every case is immediately analyzed for those opportunities. Our record of excellent results by way of summary judgment victories or resolutions reached through strong negotiation at mediation is second to none. Nevertheless, when the facts or circumstances of a case require it, we do not hesitate to take a case to trial. By way of recent example, we have achieved the following: We received a defense verdict after a three-week liability trial. We were facing liability under Labor Law 241(6) against our client. We obtained a verdict that assessed a significant percentage of fault on a claim for contribution against a third-party defendant that designed and manufactured a massive mechanical gantry running on a complex system of rails as part of a construction renovation project on the roof of a New York City building. We ended up saving our client over $2 million when the case resolved following the verdict. We received summary judgment for a site safety consultant on the basis of its status as an independent contractor in a case involving the operation of a crane that resulted in the plaintiff sustaining catastrophic amputation injuries. We received summary judgment for a third-party defendant employer in a case involving interrelated maritime and Labor Law construction claims at a marine construction site at the old Tappan Zee Bridge. We won summary judgment, affirmed on appeal, for an owner where the court ruled that the plaintiff’s work activity did not qualify for protection under Labor Law 240, 241(6), or 200, under the Court of Appeals four-part analysis in Soto v. J Crew. We won summary judgment for the owner and general contractor under Labor Law sections 240, 241(6), and 200, based on our argument that our client was not directing or controlling the plaintiff’s work when he was injured and that the Labor Law did not apply to the plaintiff’s fall from a truck in a parking lot adjacent to the construction site. These examples represent but a mere snapshot of the cases handled and won by our New York Construction and Labor Law Practice Group. Our superior service and record of success is rooted not only in our legal expertise but also in our deep experience and knowledge of the construction industry itself from the inside out. *Peter is a shareholder and co-chair of the firm’s New York Construction and Labor Law Practice Group. Peter works in our New York City office and can be reached at (212) 376-6445 or psread@mdwcg.com.

News

View all

Firm Highlights

blue facade of a hospital sign against blue sky

Result

Defense Verdict in Complex Medical Malpractice Trial

Thought Leadership

Perlmutter Provides Predictability for Punitive Damages Claims in Florida

In a much anticipated decision, the Florida Supreme Court provided clarity for the standards of proof for punitive damages claims in Perlmutter v. Federal Insurance Company, SC2024-0058 (Fla. June 11, 2026). Litigants and trial judges must be mindful of the standards laid out by the Court. And, defense practitioners must be prepared to alter their strategies to defend against such claims. Perlmutter came to the Court from the Fourth District, based on conflict jurisdiction with decisions from the Second and Fifth District and on certification of a question of great public importance as to the standard of proof for punitive damages claims at the pleading stage. Fed. Ins. Co. v. Perlmutter, 376 So. 3d 24, 29 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023). In the underlying case, the Fourth District made two conclusions. First, it held that a “trial court must consider the evidentiary showing by all parties at the hearing on the motion to amend, that is, evidence ‘in the record’ and evidence ‘proffered by the claimant.’”  376 So. 3d at 33. Second, the Fourth held that it “interpreted section 768.72(1) and (2) to require the trial court to make a preliminary determination of whether a reasonable jury, viewing the totality of proffered evidence in the light most favorable to the movant, could find by clear and convincing evidence that punitive damages are warranted.  Id. at 34 (underscoring in the original). In making these conclusions, the court cautioned trial courts that the “preliminary determination” analysis did not entitle the trial court to decide whether the evidence is clear and convincing and noted that the trial court should not weigh evidence and should not determine witness credibility. Id. The Florida Supreme Court accepted jurisdiction and answered the certified question in the negative. It quashed the decision below and remanded the case for application of the following standards: The trial court should consider only the evidence identified or proffered by the claimant; it should not entertain an evidentiary counter-submission from the opponent. The trial court should consider whether a reasonable person could conclude based on the claimant’s evidence, that the defendant committed “intentional misconduct” or “gross negligence” as defined in section 768.72(2) or section 768.72(3). The trial court must review the request for punitive damages in the context of the underlying claims. The trial court should not apply the clear and convincing standard of proof in reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence at the pleading stage. The trial court does not act as a fact-finder; the trial court must not weigh the claimant’s evidence—it cannot decide the truth of the matter. The trial court must consider the record evidence and the proffered evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, but the allegations in the proposed amended complaint are not themselves evidence. Perlmutter, SC2024-0058 at 13-15 (emphasis added). In explaining these standards, the Court interpreted the text of the statute and compared it to a related statute which governs punitive damages in the nursing home context. The nursing home statute expressly calls for evidentiary submissions by “the parties” and expressly tells the trial court to determine whether there is a reasonable basis to believe the claimant could satisfy the “clear and convincing evidence” standard at trial. Id. at 17-18 (comparing the text of section 768.72(1), Florida Statutes, with section 400.0237, Florida Statutes). Without that express language in section 768.72, the statute could not be applied in the same manner. With these standards specially delineated for the trial courts, the Court is “confident that its interpretation of section 768.72(1) will not frustrate the effectiveness of the statute in accomplishing the Legislature’s textually evident purposes.” Id.  at 22 (cleaned up). This remains to be seen. While Perlmutter provides predictability and clarity for trial courts when reviewing the evidentiary submissions in support of a punitive damages claim, the decision will not likely impact the numbers of punitive damages motions filed. Rather, these new parameters will change the way claims are defended, reminiscent of a time when rulings on punitive damages were only subject to certiorari review and appellate courts were limited in reviewing procedural errors. This decision will likely deflate the level-playing field that Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(G) addressed by allowing appeals of orders granting and denying punitive damages amendments. Further, Perlmutter may have impliedly created a call to action for the Legislature to amend section 768.72(1) in the same manner it amended section 400.0237 to allow the courts to analyze “admissible evidence submitted by the parties” and determine at a hearing whether there is a reasonable basis to believe the claimant at trial would be able to demonstrate by “clear and convincing evidence” that the recovery of punitive damages is warranted. Until then, defendants must adjust their strategies. To adapt to these new standards, defense practitioners will need to tailor their strategy for defending punitive damages claims since they can no longer submit a counter-proffer or urge a court to apply the clear and convincing standard at the pleading phase. Instead, defendants will need to attack the deficiencies in the claimant’s pleadings and proffer. If the trial court fails to serve as a gatekeeper, and does not apply the above standards, then defendants can pursue an interlocutory appeal under Rule 9.130(a)(3)(G). If a nonfinal appeal is taken, then defendants should move to stay any intrusive financial discovery while the appellate court analyzes the issues on appeal. Finally, defendants should utilize Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510 to serve as a screening device to allow the trial court to analyze all evidence and prevent nonmeritorious punitive damages claims from proceeding to a jury.

Result

Unanimous Verdict Obtained in a Medical Malpractice Matter in Bergen County, New Jersey

Thought Leadership

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Holds Self-Referral Prohibition Does Not Cover Prescriptions Written by Physicians with Ownership Interests in Dispensing Pharmacies

700 Pharmacy v. Bureau of Workers’ Compensation Fee Review Hearing Office (State Workers’ Insurance Fund); Nos. 97, 98, 99, 100, 101 MAP 2024; decided June 16, 2026; by Justice Mundy.   In this case, Drs. Miteswar Purewal and Shailen Jalali, treating physicians for workers’ compensation claimants, wrote prescriptions for various medications that were filled by 700 Pharmacy. The worker’s compensation insurer refused to pay for the prescriptions on the basis that they were illegal self-referrals under the Act. 700 Pharmacy subsequently filed fee review applications with The Bureau of Workers’ Compensation Medical Fee Review Office. At a fee review hearing, both physicians stipulated they had a financial interest in the pharmacy.  The physicians argued that the Anti-Referral Provision of the Act does not bar self-referrals on prescription drugs and pharmaceutical services, since the provision does not specifically identify prescription drugs. The Fee Review Hearing Officer rejected this argument and found that prescriptions for medications are prohibited under the “goods or services” language included in the provision. 700 Pharmacy appealed to the Commonwealth Court, and the court affirmed, agreeing with the Hearing Officer’s interpretation of “goods and services” as encompassing prescriptions. 700 Pharmacy appealed to the Supreme Court.  The Supreme Court reversed the decisions of the Hearing Officer and the Commonwealth Court, holding that the term “goods and services” in the Anti-Referral Provision of the Act did not include prescriptions. According to the Court, “goods and services” was not a catch-all, but simply explanatory as to the eight enumerated categories in the provision. The provision (Section 306(f.1)(3)(iii)) reads, in pertinent part: Notwithstanding any other provision of law, it is unlawful for a provider to refer a person for laboratory, physical therapy, rehabilitation, chiropractic, radiation oncology, psychometric, home infusion therapy  or diagnostic imaging, goods or services pursuant to this section if the provider has a financial interest with the person or in the entity that receives the referral. The Court said that if the General Assembly wanted to specifically include prescription drugs and pharmaceutical services in the Anti-Referral Provision, they would have done so. They pointed out that prescription drugs and pharmaceutical services were included by the legislature in Section 306 (f.1)(3)(vi) of the Act as to reimbursement, and claimed that their omission from the Anti-Referral Provision supports the conclusion that those services are not included in the Anti-Referral Provision’s self-referral prohibition.

News

Veteran Trial Attorney Joseph M. Toddy Joins Marshall Dennehey’s Casualty Department in Philadelphia

News

Marshall Dennehey’s John J. Hare Brings Home Attorney of the Year Honors; Firm Named Litigation Department of the Year in Two Categories

Marshall Dennehey took home top honors in three categories at the The Legal Intelligencer’s 2026 Pennsylvania Legal Awards, held June 11 in Philadelphia. The first place awards include: Attorney of the Year: John J. Hare, Chair of the firm’s Appellate Advocacy & Post-Trial Practice Group and Executive Committee member, together with Charles “Chip” Becker of Kline & Specter Litigation Department of the Year, Appellate – Third Win in a Row! Litigation Department of the Year, Product Liability/Mass Torts “There is no one more deserving of Attorney of the Year honors than John. This award is a testament to his exceptional skill, dedication, and leadership—qualities that truly exemplify the very best of our firm,” said G. Mark Thompson, Marshall Dennehey’s President & CEO. “These honors also reflect the strength and depth of our product liability, mass torts, and appellate practices across Pennsylvania and beyond, underscoring our ongoing commitment to delivering outstanding results for our clients.” Attorney of the Year – John J. Hare, Marshall Dennehey, together with Charles “Chip” Becker, Kline & Specter Over the past year, John and Charles were opposing counsel in many of the highest-profile civil appeals in Pennsylvania. John is renowned as a preeminent appellate lawyer on the defense side, and Chip on the plaintiff's side. They have opposed each other repeatedly, exhibiting peerless professionalism and exceptional civility, while zealously litigating under the unremitting pressure of high-profile litigation and record-setting verdicts totaling more than $3.5 billion. They have also collaborated, outside of litigation, on many commissions, committees, and projects of importance to the Pennsylvania judiciary and legal community. Litigation Department of the Year – Appellate Law, Winner (previous winner, 2025 and 2024) 2025 was another standout year for the firm’s Appellate Advocacy & Post‑Trial Practice Group, led by John J. Hare, which was retained to challenge many of Pennsylvania’s “nuclear” verdicts—awards exceeding $10 million. Notably, the department persuaded the Pennsylvania Superior Court to reverse a Philadelphia judgment of $1.09 billion, the largest judgment ever overturned by a Pennsylvania appellate court. The group’s 11 full‑time Pennsylvania‑based appellate lawyers are at the center of Pennsylvania’s most high-profile matters, bringing more than 150 years of combined appellate experience. They routinely handle post‑trial and appellate matters and are frequently engaged to participate in and monitor trials in high‑exposure cases to ensure that critical legal issues are properly raised and preserved for appeal. Litigation Department of the Year – Product Liability/Mass Torts, Winner This marks the first win for the firm’s Pennsylvania Product Liability and Mass Torts practices, which operate within our Casualty Department, managed by Matthew Schorr and Jeff Rapattoni. For almost five decades, Fortune 500 product manufacturers/distributors and their insurers have turned to these groups to defend their litigation. Led by Bradley D. Remick and Vlada Tasich, our Product Liability group’s success can be attributed to its commitment to keeping abreast of ever-changing legal theories, judicial viewpoints, and evolving technology impacting the product liability landscape. Our attorneys have successfully handled thousands of product liability matters in all jurisdictions across the state. Likewise, our mass tort litigation practice – divided into Asbestos & Mass Tort, and Environmental & Toxic Tort Litigation –  has defended manufacturers, distributors, contractors, and premises owners in thousands of personal injury and other claims. Led by Kevin E. Hexstall and Patrick T. Reilly, most attorneys in these groups have more than 20 years of experience, and our seasoned trial team has tried hundreds of cases to verdict, consistently achieving strong results through both trials and settlements. In addition to these awards, Marshall Dennehey was a Litigation Department of the Year finalist for Professional Liability.

Result

No-Cause Jury Verdict Secured in Wrongful Death Trial

We successfully obtained a no-cause jury verdict in a 13-day wrongful death trial. The decedent, a 59-year-old man, was admitted to the emergency room on February 15, 2019, with complaints of abdominal pain, decreased appetite, and constipation, despite the use of laxatives. The patient did not complain of any nausea, vomiting, or diarrhea. He had a significant medical history including diabetes, hypertension, prior coronary artery stenting, morbid obesity (with past gastric bypass surgery), longstanding ventral hernia, and back pain. A CT scan revealed multiple hernias and a potential closed-loop bowel obstruction, leading to a surgery consultation. Our client, an emergency general surgeon, interpreted that the patient did not have a closed loop or any significant obstruction and recommended non-surgical management. The patient was approved to have clear liquids, and had a vomiting incident shortly after, but our client was not notified. The patient was returned to NPO status, and after improving overnight, he was returned to “clears” and additional medical and renal consults were ordered. Our client did not receive any communications from the residents/nurses of any changes in the patient’s condition. On February 18, 2019, two rapid responses were called due to increased heart rate and vomiting. It is believed that the vomiting resulted in aspiration, causing sepsis, ultimately leading to the patient’s death. During the trial, the plaintiff’s sole medical expert highlighted imaging on the wrong hernia, which called into question all of his opinions in the case. We made key objections related to the expert testimony, limiting what the allegations were, and preventing new allegations from being made. After approximately two and a half hours of deliberating, the jury returned a no-cause verdict. 

Result

Summary Judgment Secured, Preserving $750,000 in Coverage for Insured in Major Trucking Liability Dispute

Ray Freudiger and Michael A. Roberts (both of Cincinnati) successfully obtained summary judgment on behalf of their client in a coverage dispute arising from a May 19, 2022, motor vehicle accident. A permissive driver operated a box truck for an interstate trucking company and caused severe injuries to two tort victims. Prior to the accident, the insured had procured a commercial auto policy for the trucking company with stated limits of $1,000,000. Following the accident, the insurer initiated a declaratory judgment action asserting that only reduced bodily injury limits of $25,000/$50,000 applied and later counterclaimed, alleging it would not have insured the driver had he been properly submitted for approval under the policy. After extensive discovery, briefing, and oral argument, the court rejected the insurer’s attempt to shift responsibility for the $750,000 in coverage it was legally required to provide for permissive drivers under Ohio law, granting summary judgment in favor of the insured and preserving $750,000 in liability exposure.

Portrait of Thomas Glassman. Text: Joining our Cincinnati Office as a Shareholder in the Casualty Department

News

Marshall Dennehey Adds Shareholder Thomas F. Glassman in Cincinnati, Expands Casualty Practice in Ohio and Kentucky

Thought Leadership

Unanimous New Jersey Supreme Court Holds That Personal Emails of Public Employees and Officials are Subject to OPRA

In Rosetti v. Ramapo-Indian Hills Regional High School Board of Education, the New Jersey Supreme Court unanimously held that government-related emails, which are contained within personal email accounts, are government records under the Open Public Records Act (OPRA), and a log of those emails must be produced when requested. In reaching this decision, the court conducted an analysis of the OPRA and cited previous cases that held that emails do in fact fall within OPRA’s definition of a record and must be produced when requested pursuant to the Act. The court in Rosetti then had to answer the question as to whether public officials’ personal email accounts that are used for government purposes are subject to OPRA, and found that they are. Rosetti made an OPRA request to the Board of Education seeking email logs from Board members’ personal email accounts. The Board refused to produce the logs and indicated that it was not under any obligation to produce personal email account logs, only from government-related email accounts. The issue was whether a log had to be produced for Board members’ personal email accounts, which they used to conduct Board business. The Board argued that while it was possible to create a log for government-related email accounts through its IT Department, it was not possible to do so for personal email accounts. The court rejected this argument and ruled that Board members are required to search their personal email accounts and create a log of government-related emails housed in those accounts. Once completed, each Board member then must submit a certification detailing the searches that were conducted. The court went one step further with a suggestion to government employees and officials, stating, “[g]overnment agencies should strongly advise their employees, elected officials, and others engaged in government-related business to refrain from using their personal email accounts when conducting government-related business.”  Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions regarding this case and others pertaining to the OPRA.