.

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2023 New York Metro Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

September 22, 2023

Seven attorneys from Marshall Dennehey’s New York City, Westchester County, and Long Island offices have been selected to the 2023 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. 

2023 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, employment litigation, real estate litigation, complex commercial litigation, ADA public accommodation and ADA class action litigation. He has experience practicing before the New York State Division of Human Rights and the New York City Human Rights Commission.

2023 New York Metro Super Lawyer Rising Stars

Dean Aronin, Transportation/Maritime (NYC). Dean practices in the areas of admiralty and maritime litigation, construction and labor law, general liability and commercial litigation. He handles maritime products liability, claims involving exoneration from or limitation of liability, breach of Bare Boat Charter Agreement and maritime personal injury cases, including Jones Act claims and Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act. He is a member of the  Maritime Law Association of the United States (MLA) and the Marine and Insurance Claims Association (MICA).

Adam C. Calvert, Personal Injury General: Defense (NYC).  Adam represents clients in the fields of construction injury litigation, retail liability, automobile litigation, trucking and transportation litigation, product liability actions, and amusements, sports and recreation liability. His clients include retail stores, construction companies, maintenance companies, amusement parks, theaters and product retailers, among others.

Elizabeth Driscoll, Personal Injury – Products: Defense (NYC). Elizabeth is a member of the Casualty Department and primarily focuses her practice on defending insurance carriers in Personal Injury Protection (PIP) claims. As a member of the Fraud/Special Investigation Practice Group she additionally defends against intentional/staged losses, as well as medical provider fraud.  

Preston Holmes, General Litigation (Westchester County). Preston is an associate in the firm's Casualty Department, representing clients in matters of general liability involving automobile and trucking matters. He is a member of the American, New York State and Metropolitan Black Bar Associations. 

Robert Demeusy, Personal Injury – Products: Defense (Melville). Robert represents local and national clients in complex litigation, with significant experience in products liability and toxic torts. He handles cases from inception through disposition, including conducting depositions, performing legal research, drafting motions and providing detailed case analysis and defense strategy reports to clients and insurance carriers to facilitate effective case resolutions.

Matthew Gray, Insurance Coverage (Melville). As a member of the Casualty Department, Matthew has multiple years of experience focusing his practice on defending numerous insurance carriers in disputes involving New York Personal Injury Protection claims. He is also a member of the Fraud/Special Investigation Practice Group, where he defends against intentional/staged losses, as well as medical provider fraud.

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.