.

Mark is a veteran defense litigator in the Casualty Department, specializing in high-exposure construction claims, subrogation defense, and complex premises liability cases. Practicing in the New York metropolitan area, a uniquely challenging litigation landscape driven by an aggressive and largely unchecked plaintiffs’ personal injury bar, Mark serves as an essential line of defense for institutional defendants. He acts as trusted panel counsel for a variety of major insurance carriers and operates as primary outside defense counsel protecting the complex New York City infrastructure and operations of a premier national telecommunications provider.

In a legal market saturated with inflated and unvetted filings, Mark provides his clients with critical economic discipline and sharp tactical judgment. He possesses a keen diagnostic instinct for identifying fraudulent, manufactured, or opportunistic claims early in the litigation cycle. Recognizing that modern claims management requires a metrics-driven approach, Mark prides himself on knowing precisely which cases demand early, cost-effective resolution and which must be litigated aggressively to the finish. This strategic approach ensures that carriers never waste valuable legal fees on meritorious files, while sending a clear message that exaggerated claims will be fought fiercely.

Mark’s practice spans the full life cycle of complex civil disputes, from immediate post-incident investigation through the appellate process. He is a formidable courtroom advocate who has argued extensively before the New York State Appellate Division across a broad spectrum of civil matters, including construction liability, catastrophic injury defense, and the defense of municipalities and law enforcement agencies.

Mark graduated with a Bachelor of Arts from Tulane University and earned his Juris Doctor from St. John's University School of Law. He is admitted to practice in New York and Ohio, as well as before the United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York.

    • St. John's University School of Law (J.D., 2002)
    • Tulane University of Louisiana (B.A., 1999)
    • New York, 2003
    • Ohio, 2023
    • Nassau County Bar Association
    • Employing Mechanism of Injury to Defend Injury Claims, ARCCA, November 2014
    • Litigating Insurance Coverage Claims: From Start to Finish, National Business Institute, December 2012
    • Green Building Insurance Coverage Seminar, Nassau County Bar Association, April 2010
    • Recent Developments in Spoliation of Evidence, Nassau Suffolk Claims Managers, May 2006

Firm Highlights

Thought Leadership

Appellate Division Affirms Dismissal of Legal Malpractice Counterclaim Against Martin Law Firm

In Martin v. Loury, 2026 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1617 (App. Div. July 15, 2026), Martin Law Firm represented Kirk Loury in an employment matter Mr. Loury filed against his former employer, Concord Equity Group Advisors LLC (“Concord”). The allegations included, among other things, that Loury was not fairly compensated for his employment with Concord. After a bench trial finding in Loury’s favor, the Appellate Division remanded this matter in February 2016 for a second trial. During the second trial, Concord CEO, Lee Argush, testified to lower compensation estimate than first trial. On remand, the second trial judge awarded Mr. Loury the same damages as the first judge, finding Mr. Argush not credible. After the findings during the second trial, Martin Law Firm filed an action against Mr. Loury to recover legal fees and costs of representing Mr. Loury in a second bench trial and Mr. Loury filed a counterclaim against Martin Law Firm for legal malpractice, alleging he should have received an even higher award in the second bench trial. In this allegation, Mr. Loury, through his expert, claimed that Martin Law Firm should have recalled Mr. Loury to the stand to rebut Mr. Argush’s testimony to allege an alternative theory of damages. Mr. Loury’s expert admitted that the second judge already rejected Mr. Argush's theory and accepted Loury's damages theory. The trial court barred Mr. Loury’s expert and dismissed Loury's counterclaim with prejudice before convening the collection trial, and the jury ruled in Martin Law Firm’s favor. Mr. Loury appealed the trial court's pretrial rulings barring his liability expert from testifying in support of his legal malpractice counterclaim, denying his motion for summary judgment on that counterclaim, and denying his motion to amend his counterclaim by adding attorney Joseph A. Martin as a codefendant. In affirming the trial court’s decision, the Appellate Division held that the trial court properly excluded Loury’s expert testimony in the counterclaim against Martin Law Firm because the expert could not explain how calling Loury as a rebuttal witness would have increased damages when the second judge already rejected Mr. Argush's testimony and accepted Loury's damages theory, making the expert’s causation opinion speculative. The Appellate Division also held that the trial court properly denied Mr. Loury's summary judgment motion on his malpractice counterclaim because reasonable minds could differ on whether Mr. Martin's alleged failures would have changed the second judge's damages award, given the judge already found Mr. Argush not credible, creating genuine factual disputes precluding summary judgment. Also, the Appellate Division held that the trial court properly denied Loury's May 2023 motion to add Joseph Martin individually because the statute of limitations expired in February 2022, six years after the 2016 appellate remand when Mr. Loury incurred new legal costs, and relation back did not apply because Mr. Loury knew Mr. Martin's identity throughout and strategically chose to sue only Martin Law Firm in his 2019 counterclaim.