.

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 New York Metro Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

April 27, 2026

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 New York Metro Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

Eight attorneys from Marshall Dennehey’s New York City, Long Island, and Westchester offices have been selected to the 2026 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 high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement.

Each year, no more than five percent of the lawyers in a state are selected as Super Lawyers and no more than 2.5 percent are selected for Super Lawyer Rising Stars. The selection process is multi-phased and includes independent research, peer nominations and peer evaluations. A description of the selection methodology can be found at http://www.superlawyers.com/about/selection_process.html.

2026 New York Metro Super Lawyers

Nicholas P. Chrysanthem, Professional Liability: Defense (NYC). An experienced trial attorney and litigator for over 30 years, Nicholas defends clients in matters involving legal malpractice, attorney disciplinary proceedings, employment litigation, real estate litigation, complex commercial litigation, class actions, and ADA public accommodation and ADA class action litigation. Nicholas has successfully tried cases in New York State and Federal Courts. He has experience practicing before the New York State Division of Human Rights and the New York City Human Rights Commission. Nicholas has successfully argued appeals in New York State’s Appellate Courts.

Christopher J. DiCicco, Transportation/Maritime. As Co-Chair of Marshall Dennehey’s Maritime Litigation and Aviation and Complex Litigation Practice Groups, Christopher handles maritime personal injury defense cases, including recreational boating cases, marine construction cases, maritime product liability matters, and cargo matters, as well as aviation matters. He is admitted to practice in New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania, and he actively handles litigation in all three states.

Matthew K. Flanagan, Professional Liability, Litigation (NYC and Melville). A highly skilled litigator with over 30 years of trial and appellate experience, Matthew serves as Co-Chair of the firm's Disciplinary Board Representation Practice Group. He primarily concentrates his practice on the defense of lawyers facing malpractice actions. He also defends other types of professionals and handles general litigation matters on behalf of corporate clients. Matthew has successfully tried cases in New York City and its surrounding counties and has secured dozens of victories in attorney liability cases in New York State’s appellate courts.

Allison A. Snyder, Appellate Law (NYC). Allison is a member of the firm's Appellate Advocacy and Post-Trial Practice Group. With nearly 30 years of legal writing and appellate experience, she represents clients in state and federal courts, handling appeals, dispositive motions, and post-trial matters. Allison has defended a wide range of general liability claims, including product liability, foodborne illness, aviation, and toxic tort cases, and has argued before the New York Court of Appeals and the Appellate Division, First and Second Departments.

2026 New York Metro Super Lawyer Rising Stars

Matthew A. Gray, Insurance Coverage (Melville). Matthew has multiple years of experience defending numerous insurance carriers in disputes involving New York Personal Injury Protection (PIP) claims. A member of the firm’s Fraud/Special Investigation Practice Group, he defends carriers against intentional/staged losses, as well as medical provider fraud.

Lindsay F. Korn, PI General, Defense (Melville). Lindsay represents clients in complex civil litigation, including professional liability, general liability, and personal injury defense. She handles high exposure matters involving nuanced liability issues, along with premises liability cases, including bodily injury claims, and insurance-related disputes involving PIP claims and fraud.

Lucinda E.C. James, PI General, Defense (New York City). Lucy represents clients in general liability, premises liability, NY Labor Law 240, and automobile litigation matters. Her clients include property owners, maintenance firms, construction contractors, and transportation companies. Lucy also defends insurance fraud cases involving fraud rings, staged accidents and exaggerated injuries, in addition to improper and fraudulent medical provider billing and reporting.

Charles L. Sutter, PI General, Defense (Purchase, NY). As a member of the firm’s Casualty Department, Charles defends high-exposure cases involving commercial and personal automobile liability, general liability, premises liability, and product liability. He has represented insurance carriers and their insureds in product liability subrogation and personal injury claims in both the federal and state courts.

Firm Highlights

Congratulations to our 2026 Florida Super Lawyers & Rising Stars: Elizabeth Ferguson, A.C. Nash, Taylor Naughton, Sophia Philor, Amara Rodriguez

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Florida Super Lawyers & Florida Rising Stars

Thought Leadership

What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp - News and Results*

RESULTS* Eric Scott Thompson (Wilmington) was successful in a workers’ compensation matter in Delaware. On October 15, 2024, the claimant was injured while performing fire training in a multistory building when he tripped over a fire line, injuring his right knee. The claimant received regular and consistent treatment for the right knee through August 29, 2025, when he presented with left knee complaints for the first time. His treating orthopedist diagnosed a hamstring strain. The claimant was next seen October 15, 2025, with continued left knee complaints, and was referred to a total knee doctor within the practice. He was then diagnosed with a posterior root tear of the medial meniscus. Our expert testified that it was not plausible for a lateral hamstring strain to progress to a meniscal tear in two months. The claimant required a total knee replacement that was ultimately performed in February 2026. In the six months between the time of initial presentation with left knee complaints and the total knee replacement, conservative care consisted of a single injection. Our expert testified that posterior root media meniscal tears can respond to conservative care, and it was not known if it would with the claimant because it was not adequately explored. The Industrial Accident Board agreed with our expert and determined that the claimant failed to meet the burden of establishing more likely than not that the left knee complaints were caused by overloading/overuse as a result of the compensable injury to the right knee. They also agreed that the claimant was able to return to work in a sedentary capacity as opined by his physicians and our expert prior to the left total knee replacement and that there were employment opportunities available within his restrictions and capabilities as presented by the vocational expert. As a result, the claimant is no longer entitled to total disability benefits and will receive partial disability benefits for which he is limited to 300 weeks. Michele Punturi (Philadelphia) and Alana Staniszewski (Pittsburgh) had a termination petition granted in a Pennsylvania workers’ compensation case. The petition involved an echocardiography technologist with long-term employment at a local hospital who sustained a right shoulder injury resulting in surgery in January 2024. Following surgery, the claimant was diagnosed with a frozen shoulder and underwent additional surgery in June 2024, with a recommendation for a third surgery. The opinions of the defense medical expert, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, were found credible, persuasive, and competent based upon the extensive history he obtained from the claimant, analysis of the mechanism of injury, and review of records, along with comparison of MRIs from October 2023, February 11, 2024, and January 6, 2025, which failed to reveal any causal relationship other than a strain/sprain of the right shoulder. This evidence supported that the claimant had fully recovered, and was not in need of any ongoing medical treatment and/or restrictions. In particular, despite allegations of injuries beyond a sprain/strain, the defense medical expert identified that those allegations were not consistent with what was found at the time of surgery, and elements of the surgery were to treat a chronic and degenerative condition. Additionally there were no ongoing issues or problems with the subscapularis, which was intact, consistent with the follow-up MRI of February 11, 2024, and the claimant did not have evidence of a frozen shoulder. In fact, the MRIs and mechanism of injury, he opined, did not support any injury causing tendonitis or inflammatory conditions within the bicep tendon. Furthermore, multiple days of surveillance footage demonstrated the claimant’s normal use, with the ability to sweep and shovel snow, operate her vehicle, raise her arms above shoulder level, and use a broom – all without any observable difficulty, which challenged the claimant’s credibility of a disability and further established a lack of causation. As a result of this favorable decision, supersedeas fund reimbursement will be obtained for both wage loss and medical benefits through the supersedeas fund recovery process. Tony Natale III (King of Prussia) had a termination petition granted involving a claimant who sustained a lower back injury. He was treated by a physician who immediately referred him for a $6,500 per month steady diet of TENS unit and supplies. The employer filed a termination petition based on a full recovery opinion from an orthopedic surgeon. The claimant continued to treat during the litigation with the electronic supplies. Expert testimony demonstrated that the claimant had no reproducible lower back problems and had fully recovered from the work injury. The court granted  a complete defense verdict. Tony Natale III (King of Prussia) successfully had a termination petition granted by the Berks County Workers’ Compensation Court. The claimant suffered multiple upper extremity injuries which relegated him to light duty paper work. Several years later, the employer was able to retrieve a full recovery opinion on the hand/wrist and shoulder injuries. The claimant presented testimony that he could not even raise a glass of water without pain. Medical expert testimony was presented by the employer, which shrouded the claimant’s allegations of disability in serious doubt. The claimant’s hands and arm had no muscular atrophy and were covered in dirt and callouses, demonstrating that he was working and using his hands. The court granted a full defense verdict. Tony Natale III (King of Prussia) achieved a defense verdict in a Medicare conditional lien suit. The Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) filed a conditional lien payment request to the PIP insurer. The government contractors for CMS denied the insurer’s first- and second-level appeal and awarded the lien with interest. The matter was referred for handling of the third-level appeal, which moved from a government contractor to the court. At the hearing, it was proffered that the government violated the relevant statute of limitations on the prosecution of the conditional lien. The government alleged a six-year limitations period pursuant to the Secondary Payer Act. In response, it was demonstrated that a three-year limitations period controlled under the correct section of the statute and the government was misapprehending the correct limitations period. The court agreed and dismissed the lien for a complete defense verdict. Tony Natale III (King of Prussia) successfully had a workers’ compensation termination petition granted in a matter in which the claimant had an adjudicated right elbow injury. The claimant expert attempted to allege a different elbow injury than what had previously been adjudicated in order to defeat the termination petition. Res Judicata objections were sustained since the same expert tried to amend the nature of injury in previous litigation and was unsuccessful. The court granted a complete defense verdict. Alana Staniszewski (Pittsburgh) successfully defended an Appeal to the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board, which challenged the Judge’s complete denial of the Claimant’s Claim Petition. The judge wholly credited the Employer’s surveillance footage and Employer witness testimony which directly contradicted the Claimant’s testimony. Through brief and oral argument, Alana argued that Claimant’s appeal attempted to impermissibly challenge the judge’s authority as the sole arbiter of credibility and emphasized that the judge was free to draw reasonable inferences from the evidence of record. Alana Staniszewski (Pittsburgh) successfully defended against a claimant’s appeal to the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board, which challenged the WCJ’s complete denial of the claimant’s claim petition. In the underlying litigation, the WCJ wholly credited the employer’s surveillance footage and the employer witness testimony, which directly contradicted the claimant’s testimony. Finding that the claimant’s testimony and version of events lacked credibility, the WCJ opined that the claimant had failed to satisfy his burden of proof to establish a work-related injury and entitlement to workers’ compensation benefits. The claimant filed an appeal arguing that the WCJ’s findings were not supported by substantial, competent evidence, that the WCJ failed to issue a reasoned decision, and that he erred in denying the claim petition. The claimant argued that the WCJ drew impermissible inferences from the evidence offered by the defense. Through a brief and oral argument before the WCAB, we argued that the claimant’s appeal attempted to impermissibly challenge the WCJ’s authority as the sole arbiter of credibility and emphasized that the WCJ was free to draw reasonable inferences from the evidence of record. The WCAB accepted our arguments and wholly rejected the claimant’s appeal. The WCAB affirmed the WCJ’s decision and order in its entirety, affirming our successful defense against the claimant’s claim petition, solidifying a complete defense victory. *Prior Results Do Not Guarantee a Similar Outcome

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.

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. 

Portrait of Carolyn Schweizer, with text below: Philadelphia Office Managing Attorney

News

Marshall Dennehey Names Carolyn Schweizer New Philadelphia Office Managing Attorney

Thought Leadership

Legal Update for Special Education Law: Recent Positive Outcomes From the Group

Hearing Officer Confirms District Acted Appropriately Under IDEA and Section 504 William J. McPartland (Scranton) obtained a finding in favor of our client, a school district, on all issues following a due process hearing. The parent had filed a due process complaint alleging that the school district had breached its child find duty under the IDEA and Section 504, that the school district had discriminated against the student on the basis of disability in violation of Section 504, and that the school district had denied a free and appropriate public education to the student both by developing inadequate IEPs and via an actionable procedural violation.  Specifically, the student had received a Section 504 evaluation in October 2023, after a number of behavioral infractions culminating in a fight in September 2023, was identified as having anxiety and a sleep disorder, and received appropriate Section 504 accommodations. The student had never previously demonstrated signs of a learning disability, and the parent denied the school district permission to evaluate the student for special education needs in November 2023, and January 2024. The parent granted the district permission to evaluate the student in October 2024, after a private psychologist diagnosed the student with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, possible Oppositional Defiance Disorder, a learning disorder, and anxiety. The school district issued a special education evaluation report in December 2024, finding that the student had an emotional disturbance and other health impairment, and an IEP providing an itinerant level of emotional support, as well as instruction in academics and social skills, was issued in January 2025, and amended in February, March, and April 2025. The student withdrew from the school district in April 2025, to attend a cyber charter school. The hearing officer determined that the school district had not violated its child find duty to the student in violation of either the IDEA or Section 504 where the district developed a Section 504 plan for the student within a month and a half of the parent’s first request for a Section 504 evaluation and where the parent repeatedly denied consent to conduct an IDEA evaluation of the student. The hearing officer noted that the student’s sporadic record of behavioral infractions prior to September 2023, did not suggest that the student had a disability prior to the parent’s initial request for an evaluation. The hearing officer further determined that no evidence had been produced to suggest that the student was discriminated against on the basis of disability in violation of Section 504. Additionally, the hearing officer determined that the IEP offered to the student was substantively adequate and that, to the extent the social and emotional programming offered by the school district was not received by the student, this resulted from the parent’s refusal to accept the same. The hearing officer finally determined that the school district did not commit an actionable procedural violation by delaying development of an IEP for the student where the parent repeatedly denied consent to evaluate the student. Court Dismisses Three of Four Claims Against School District Christopher J. Conrad and Daniel P. McGannon (Harrisburg) achieved a significant early victory on behalf of a school district client in. The team successfully obtained dismissal of three of the four claims asserted in the plaintiff’s amended complaint. The former district superintendent brought multiple claims arising out of his alleged “forced resignation,” including age discrimination under the ADEA, a Section 1983 Equal Protection claim, a Pennsylvania Whistleblower claim, and breach of contract. On behalf of the district, the defense team moved to dismiss the complaint in part, arguing: The plaintiff failed to plead sufficient facts to support a prima facie case of age discrimination. The equal protection claim was barred because the ADEA provides the exclusive federal remedy for age-based employment claims. The breach of contract claim could not stand because the underlying employment agreement had expired prior to the alleged breach. The court agreed, dismissing the ADEA, equal protection, and breach of contract claims in their entirety. As a result, only a single claim under the Pennsylvania Whistleblower Law remains pending. This outcome substantially narrows the scope of the litigation and positions the client for a more efficient defense moving forward.

Casey Alan Coyle Joins Marshall Dennehey's PA Appellate Practice as a Shareholder in Harrisburg and Philadelphia

News

Marshall Dennehey Expands Leading Pennsylvania Appellate Practice With Addition of Shareholder Casey Coyle

Event

Florida Insurance Fraud Education Committee (FIFEC)

Sean and Alex will present, "Life Care Plans: From Low Impact to Policy Limits," focusing on the history and expanding use of life care plans in litigation and their ability to transform low impact injury claims to disproportionate high value claims. By focusing on the limitations of life care planners, Florida's tort-reform on medical damages, and the Daubert standard, extraordinary life care plans with inflated future medical care recommendations can be defended.

blue facade of a hospital sign against blue sky

Result

Defense Verdict in Complex Medical Malpractice Trial

Thought Leadership

Vendor Cyber Attack Compromises PII of More Than 3 Million Hunting and Fishing License Holders in Texas

The Texas Parks & Wildlife Department (TPWD) announced earlier this month that one of its vendors which handles the sale of state hunting and fishing licenses was the victim of a cybersecurity attack. The threat actor appears to have exfiltrated personal driver’s license information, passport numbers, email addresses, phone numbers and addresses of over 3 million hunting and fishing license holders.  The State Parks Department advised that the attack did not compromise social security numbers, dates of birth or financial information. Texas Cyber Command, the state’s new cybersecurity authority formed to protect critical infrastructure and coordinate threat responses across state and local government, reportedly assisted in detecting and containing the attack. TPWD has already set up free credit monitoring for those impacted through Kroll.  According to press reports, no specific group has yet been identified as the perpetrator of the theft. TPWD also advised that business has not been interrupted and license sales were continuing. This incident once again demonstrates that cybersecurity is only as strong as the weakest link in the supply chain. Businesses must prioritize security across their own environments and those of their vendors and contractors as well.