Nicholas is a member of the Professional Liability Department where he focuses his practice on the defense of architects, engineers, owners, developers, general contractors, construction managers, subcontractors and design professionals. He assists with a wide range of construction industry related matters including construction and design defect matters, breach of contract, indemnity and coverage and construction code and safety violation claims.
Prior to joining Marshall Dennehey, Nicholas represented clients in a variety of matters including real estate matters where he coordinated with title insurance companies, buyers, sellers, agents, opposing counsel and mortgage lenders. He also has experience handling personal injury matters and a diverse caseload of municipality defense litigation matters involving state and federal civil rights cases including defamation, discrimination, retaliation, harassment, wrongful termination, false arrest, excessive force and whistleblower claims.
Nicholas previously served as a law clerk for the Honorable Vicki A. Citrino, J.S.C. in Paterson, New Jersey. During this time, among his many duties, Nicholas conducted legal research and prepared memoranda of law providing recommendation for final disposition on all motions before the Court each week.
A graduate of New York Law School, Nicholas was a member of the Dispute Resolution Team where he gained valuable negation, alternative dispute resolution and lawyering skills. He received his undergraduate degree from Saint Joseph’s University where he majored in Sports Marketing.
Nicholas is admitted to practice in New Jersey.
Thought Leadership
Case Law Alerts
Essex County Court Dismisses All Claims Against Theft Investigation Firm with Prejudice
November 3, 2026
In this matter, plaintiff filed a complaint against our client, North East Technical Services, Inc. (“NETS”) and other defendants, stemming from the alleged theft of her 2020 Hyundai Santa Fe. Plaintiff alleged her vehicle was stolen from her driveway. The Jersey City Police Department reported the theft to Bloomfield Police Department. Thereafter, the vehicle was impounded at the Jersey City Department of Public Works. NETS was retained by defendant, Progressive Garden State Insurance (“Progressive”) to perform a theft examination. NETS did so, concluding that the vehicle’s ignition lock assembly was intact and not defeated, and that it had last been operated by a key of the proper type, such as the keys present in the vehicle at the time of the examination. Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that NETS willfully and falsely stated the keys were in the vehicle at the time of the investigation because Plaintiff had mailed the keys to Progressive for the theft investigation. Plaintiff further alleges that NETS’ negligent, reckless, and careless acts or omissions in conducting its investigation and reporting their findings to Progressive were to Plaintiff’s detriment. The complaint asserts claims against NETS for conversion (Count Three); unjust enrichment (Count Fourt); violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (Count Five); and negligence (Count Ten). A motion to dismiss was filed on behalf of NETS wherein it was argued that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because the allegations are either legally insufficient or factually unsupported, and that plaintiff has not established the necessary elements for her claims. NETS further asserts that it is not liable under the theories advanced by Plaintiff, and that the Complaint should be dismissed as a matter of law. With respect to the negligence claim, it was argued that NETS owed no legal duty to plaintiff. As to the conversion claim, it was argued that Plaintiff’s conversion claim is deficient because the complaint does not allege any facts showing that NETS wrongfully exercised dominion or control over her property. As to the unjust enrichment claim is legally deficient because plaintiff has failed to allege a sufficient basis to establish that NETS received any benefit other than payment for services rendered to Progressive. Finally, as to the claim made under the Consumer Fraud Act, it was argued that it fails because she has not alleged any deceptive or fraudulent conduct by NETS. Following oral argument, the court granted NETS motion, dismissing any and all claims against it with prejudice.
Case Law Alerts
Appellate Division Clarifies Scope of Indemnification Clauses in Construction Injury Litigation
April 1, 2026
This case involves a fall at a construction site in which a jury found the defendant, a general contractor, partially liable for the plaintiff’s injuries, awarding him and his wife damages. The defendant appealed the lower court’s determination that it was not entitled to contractual indemnification from the co-defendants, a steel company, for sums it was required to pay for not accepting plaintiffs’ offer of judgment. The general contractor subcontracted with the steel company to install steel rebar for the project. That agreement contained an indemnification provision. Upon initiation of the plaintiff’s lawsuit, the general contractor demanded that the steel company assume its defense, which they declined. Thereafter, the lower court ruled that the defendant general contractor was not entitled to indemnification. On appeal, they argued that the judge erred when he concluded it was not entitled to indemnification by the defendant steel company, arguing that the provision’s language required indemnification for “any and all…fines…penalties,…damages, liability, losses, costs and expenses, including…attorney’s fees,” which would include the offer of judgment penalties. The Appellate Court concluded that the lower court judge’s interpretation of the indemnification agreement as either not contemplating an offer of judgment or requiring the parties to draft a specific provision relating to the consequences of not accepting an offer of judgment, was in error. The court reversed that portion of the court’s April 5, 2024, order and remanded for entry of an order requiring the defendant steel company to indemnify the general contractor for the consequences of not accepting plaintiffs’ offer of judgment.
