.

Chairman, Board of Directors

Director, Casualty Department

Portrait of Matthew S. Schorr

Keith M. Andresen Returns to Marshall Dennehey as Co-Chair of the Firm’s New York Construction & Labor Law Practice Group

July 17, 2024

Keith M. Andresen has returned to Marshall Dennehey’s New York City office as a shareholder in the Casualty Department, where he joins Peter S. Read to co-chair the firm’s New York Construction & Labor Law Practice Group. Andresen, who was previously a casualty litigation associate at Marshall Dennehey, rejoins the firm after spending four years as a partner at a New York-based insurance defense firm. 

Andresen is highly experienced in the arena of construction liability, personal injury and New York State Labor Law claims. He frequently defends project owners and contractors in construction accident cases involving the New York Labor Law and Industrial Codes, with a focus on defeating liability, transferring risk and reducing damages.

“We're delighted to welcome Keith back to the firm in this leadership role," said Matthew S. Schorr, Director of the firm's Casualty Department. "Keith and Peter have a strong history of collaboration, having successfully managed numerous labor law and casualty cases together. They are an exceptional team." 

With a career-long focus on insurance defense litigation, Andresen additionally devotes his practice to premises liability, automobile liability, property litigation and construction defect claims. 

Andresen graduated, with honors, from Long Island University in 2003 and earned his juris doctor from City University of New York School of Law in 2006, where he was a member of law review. He is a member of the New York State Bar Association and is admitted to practice in New York, and its Federal Southern and Eastern Districts. 
 
 

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.