Keith M. Andresen

Keith is a shareholder in the Casualty Department and Co-Chair of the New York Construction & Labor Law practice. As an insurance defense litigator, he devotes his practice to premises liability, automobile liability and New York State Labor Law matters. He also has experience defending property damage and construction defect claims.

Keith also has experience assisting small businesses with proactive claim solutions.

He graduated from Long Island University in 2003 with honors and earned his juris doctor from CUNY Law School in 2006 where he was a member of law review.

Outside of the office he enjoys spending his time with his wife and two children, watching the Mets and running.

- City University of New York School of Law (J.D., 2006)
- Long Island University (B.A., cum laude, 2002)
- New York, 2007
- U.S. District Court Eastern District of New York
- U.S. District Court Southern District of New York
- New York Metro Super Lawyer Rising Star, 2015-2017
- New York State Bar Association
- Secured a favorable decision from the Appellate Division, Second Department, in a premises liability action involving claims that two alleged trip-and-fall incidents exacerbated the plaintiff’s preexisting injuries. During discovery, the defense uncovered three undisclosed motor vehicle accidents that were potentially relevant to the plaintiff’s claimed injuries. After the trial court denied defendants’ motion to compel related records, Keith and Allison successfully appealed. The Appellate Division reversed and directed the plaintiff to provide authorizations for records relating to the undisclosed accidents for in camera review. The decision reinforces a defendant’s right to obtain discovery concerning prior and subsequent accidents when a plaintiff places the nature, extent, aggravation, or exacerbation of injuries at issue.
- Successfully opposed the plaintiff’s motion to restore the action, resulting in the dismissal of all claims against our insured.This motor vehicle accident on July 1, 2017. The plaintiff never properly effectuated service within the timeframe of CPLR 306-b, and the defendant moved to dismiss. The plaintiff then filed an order to show cause to vacate the dismissal. The defendant opposed this, and we substituted in for the defendant Vivek Soni. The court denied plaintiff’s order to show cause as the plaintiff did not show any reasonable excuse for failing to interpose opposition timely to the underlying motion. The prior order was not vacated, and the case was dismissed against our insured.
- Successfully obtained dismissal of a premises liability action arising from an alleged sidewalk trip-and-fall after establishing that the plaintiff’s claims were barred by the statute of limitations. In this premises liability case, the plaintiff tripped and fell on the insured's sidewalk on July 18, 2021. However, the plaintiff missed the statute of limitations, and we filed a pre-answer motion to dismiss under CPLR 3211. After oral argument, our motion was granted, and the case was dismissed.
- Successfully won a dismissal of a New York Labor Law case before the Supreme Court, New York County. Plaintiff's counsel withdrew from this case after potential fraud issues were raised by the defense. The plaintiff proceeded pro se and then did not appear at further court conferences. The judge later dismissed the case entirely.
- New York State Labor Law Primer, Marshall Dennehey Client Presentation, July 29, 2025

Results

View all

New York Labor Law Case Dismissed

We obtained summary judgment in New York County in a case where the plaintiff, a construction laborer, was struck by a rolling dumpster and sustained severe crush injuries to his left foot and leg. The plaintiff, the dumpster company and the subcontractors alleged our general contractor client was responsible for overall site safety. After obtaining billing and work records for the project, the client confirmed that it did not have any involvement in the project, and we moved for summary judgment. After oral argument, the court granted our motion in its entirety and dismissed the case and all cross-claims.

Thought Leadership

View all

Case Law Alerts

Labor Law § 241(6) Claim Fails as Court Finds Excavator‑Safety Provision Not Sufficiently Specific

July 20, 2026

In order to successfully invoke liability pursuant to Labor Law § 241(6), the plaintiff must plead and prove a violation of a specific conduct-regulating provision of the Industrial Code of the State of New York. This statute imposes a non-delegable duty upon owners and contractors regardless of whether they exercise control. While the plaintiff does not have to prove actual negligence, they must show that a specific conduct-regulating provision of the Industrial Code was violated and that the violation constituted a departure from reasonable care and was a proximate cause of the accident. Ross v. Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co., 81 N.Y.2d 494, 503-55 (1993). In Mann v. Mezuyon, LLC, et al., 2026 WL 1462931, 2026 N.Y. Slip. Op. 03257 (Court of Appeals May 26, 2026), the plaintiff was struck by the boom of a nearby excavator and alleged a violation of Section 23-4.2(k) of the Industrial Code. This Section states: “[p]ersons shall not be suffered or permitted to work in any area where they may be struck or endangered by any excavation equipment or by any material being dislodged or falling from such equipment.” The Appellate Divisions were spilt as to whether section was sufficiently specific to support a 241(6) claim- the First, Third and Fourth Departments held it was not specific enough while the Second Department held otherwise. The Court of Appeals in Mann eliminated this split and held that the section is not specific enough. The court’s rationale was that the section did not provide any action to address the safety concern in the provision. This decision is significant because it eliminates Labor Law 241(6) liability based upon an alleged violation of Section 23-4.2(k) of the Industrial Code.

Case Law Alerts

Court of Appeals Narrows “Arising Out of Performance of Work” Standard

April 1, 2026

In Dibrino v. Rockefeller Center North, Inc., (2025 N.Y. Slip Op 070077, December 18. 2025), the plaintiff-carpenter was injured while using an electrical subcontractor’s ladder at the worksite. The general contractor and owner sought contractual indemnification against the electrical subcontractor citing the “arising out of the performance of the work” provision within the contract. The electrical subcontractor moved to dismiss the contractual indemnification claims. The court of appeals found that the provision was not triggered due to the plaintiff’s unauthorized use of an unattended ladder instead of using the scaffold and ladder supplied by his co-worker. This seems to narrow the “arising out of work” trigger for contractual indemnity analysis. A subcontractor’s specific work and actions at any construction site must be scrutinized under this case in order to ascertain whether indemnity provisions are triggered.