.

Long Island, NY – Melville

Marshall Dennehey established an office on Long Island in October 2011, first opening in Hauppauge and then relocating in 2014 to Melville to accommodate the firm's clients and growth. Located in the heart of Suffolk County, the office services its clients' needs throughout all of New York State.

The lawyers in the Melville office have lived and worked on Long Island throughout their careers and are familiar with the needs of its business and professional communities. Melville is located within close proximity to all the major airports and traffic arteries, providing the attorneys with easy access to all of Long Island, as well as the entire state of New York. 

Well known for its businesses in the technology and service industries, Long Island has a varied and vast business community. The firm's location in Suffolk County gives it the ability to service all types of industries throughout the area.

Thought Leadership

View all

Defense Digest

A Tale of Two Departments: Can a Motor Vehicle Defendant Assert Counterclaims Sounding in Fraud in Actions Involving Staged Accidents in Matters Venued in the Second and First Departments of the New York Appellate Division?

June 30, 2026

Key Points: The Second and First Departments of the New York Appellate Division have recently issued divergent decisions affecting a defendant’s entitlement to leave to amend its answer to assert counterclaims sounding in fraud where it appears that the accident at issue was staged/intentionally caused by the plaintiff depending on where the matter is venued. Based on these recent decisions, a defendant in a matter venued in a court in the Second Department is entitled to leave to amend its answer to assert counterclaims sounding in fraud based on mere allegations that the accident at issue was staged/intentionally caused by the plaintiff, the plaintiff knowingly made false representations to assert claims against the defendant, and that the defendant suffered damages consisting of its costs and fees incurred in investigating and litigating plaintiff’s claims.  However, a defendant in a matter venued in a court in the First Department is only entitled leave to amend its answer to assert counterclaims sounding in fraud where it submits prima facie evidence that the plaintiff staged/intentionally caused the accident and made false representations, and where the defendant alleges damages beyond those associated with its costs and fees incurred in investigating and litigating plaintiff’s claims. The Second and First Department of the New York Appellate Division both recently issued decisions addressing a defendant’s entitlement for leave to amend its answer to assert counterclaims sounding in fraud arising from an accident that is apparently staged and/or intentionally caused by a plaintiff. Specifically, despite the underlying similarities between Gimenez v. Pepsi-Cola Bottling Company of New York, Inc., 225 N.Y.S.3d 691 (NY 2d Dept. 2025) and Anguisaca-Morales v. St. Paul and St. Andrew United Methodist Church, 234 N.Y.S.3d 42 (NY 1st Dept. 2025), the respective decisions of the Second Department and First Department substantially diverged. As a result of these contrasting decisions, the venue of a matter will affect a defendant’s ability to successfully obtain leave to amend its answer to assert counterclaims sounding in fraud against a plaintiff.   Both Gimenez and Anguisaca-Morales involved plaintiffs whose alleged injuries resulted from accidents where liability would normally and presumably be decided against the defendants. In Gimenez, the plaintiffs allegedly were injured due to their vehicle being rear-ended by the defendants’ vehicle. In Anguisaca-Morales, the plaintiff allegedly fell from an unsecured ladder while working at a construction site. Both actions involved appeals from lower court decisions on the plaintiffs’ motions for summary judgment on liability and the defendants’ corresponding motions for leave to amend their answers to assert counterclaims for fraud against the plaintiffs based on allegations that the accident was staged/intentionally caused by the plaintiffs. With respect to the motions for summary judgment on liability, the Second and First Department both found issues of fact resulting in the plaintiffs not being entitled to summary judgment on liability. In Gimenez, the Second Department found that the defendants raised issues of fact as to the existence of a non-negligent explanation for the alleged accident and whether the plaintiffs staged the accident. In Anguisaca-Morales, the First Department found there were issues of fact as to whether the plaintiff intentionally fell and was the sole proximate cause of his alleged accident. Turning to the respective motions for leave to amend their answers filed by the defendants in Gimenez and Anguisaca-Morales, the defendants in both actions submitted proposed amended answers that asserted similar allegations of fraud in support of their respective counterclaims, including that: 1) the respective plaintiffs staged/intentionally caused the accidents; 2) that the respective plaintiffs knowingly made false representations against the respective defendants; and 3) that the respective defendants suffered damages as a result, consisting of incurring investigation and legal costs and fees. In both cases, the Second and First Department also reviewed evidence that they respectively determined had been sufficient to raise a question of fact as to whether the respective plaintiffs intentionally caused their accidents. However, despite the above similarities, the reasonings in these decisions regarding the respective defendants’ entitlement to leave to amend their answers diverged. In Gimenez, the Second Department held that the defendants were entitled to leave to amend their answer because the allegations asserted in their proposed amended answer were sufficient on their face to plead a counterclaim for fraud. However, in Anguisaca-Morales, the First Department held that the defendants were not entitled to leave to amend their answer because their proposed amended answer failed to sufficiently plead a counterclaim for fraud. In doing so, the First Department held that the counterclaim asserted in defendants’ proposed amended answer was premised on unproven allegations and the defendants failed to plead justifiable reliance or resulting damages. Thus, based on the Second Department’s decision in Gimenez, a defendant in an action venued in any of the lower courts in the ten counties that comprise the Second Department (Kings, Queens, Richmond, Nassau, Suffolk, Westchester, Dutchess, Orange, Rockland, and Putnam) is entitled to leave to amend its answer to assert a counterclaim for fraud against a plaintiff in an action based on mere allegations that the plaintiff staged and/or intentionally caused the accident at issue. Conversely, pursuant to the First Department’s decision in Anguisaca-Morales, a defendant in an action venued in any of the lower courts in the two counties that comprise the First Department (New York and Bronx) is not entitled to leave to amend its answer to assert a counterclaim for fraud against a plaintiff based on similar allegations. Even when the defendants submits evidence that that the plaintiff intentionally caused the accident that is sufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment on liability. Instead, in order to be entitled to leave to amend its answer to assert a counterclaim for fraud against the plaintiff in a matter venued in the First Department, a defendant is effectively required to make a prima facie demonstration that the plaintiff staged/intentionally caused the accident and that the defendant sustained damages. In doing so, the damages must be in addition to what the defendant incurred in relation to investigating and litigating the plaintiff’s claims. The decisions in Gimenez and Anguisaca-Morales have not yet been cited in any subsequent decisions involving cases where the plaintiff allegedly staged/intentionally caused the accident. Instead, these decisions have only been discussed in multiple decisions by one judge in the New York Supreme Court, Kings County, in cases that do not involve allegations of staged accidents. This judge has inserted identical language in five decisions that appear to be a concerted attempt to limit the application of Gimenez to cases where there is “concrete evidence” that the accident was staged. Ian works in our Melville, NY office. He can be reached at (631) 227-6389 or ILGlick@mdwcg.com.

Legal Updates for Insurance Agents & Brokers

New York Court Rejects Tolling Argument in Negligent‑Procurement Suit Filed After Coverage Litigation

May 7, 2026

Johnson v. Northeast Agencies, Inc., 242 A.D.3d 414 (1st Dep’t 2025) One of the recurring challenges in professional liability litigation—especially in claims against insurance brokers—is determining exactly when a claim “accrues” for purposes of the statute of limitations. The case of Johnson v. Northeast Agencies, Inc., 242 A.D.3d 414 (1st Dep’t 2025), presented a twist on this familiar issue. It raised the question of when the statute of limitations began to run on a negligent‑procurement claim against an insurance broker. In this case, a claim under a general liability policy was made in March 2018, following the commencement of a personal injury action against the owner of a rental property. A month later, the insurer issued a disclaimer of coverage, explaining that, among other reasons, the property where the injury occurred was not listed as an “insured location” under the policy. Ordinarily, such a disclaimer would start the clock on any negligent‑procurement claim against the broker, but here, despite disclaiming coverage, the insured was not immediately negatively impacted by the coverage disclaimer because the insurer agreed to provide a defense to the insured while the parties litigated the validity of the disclaimer in a separate declaratory judgment action. Eventually, the court in the declaratory judgment action upheld the insurer’s disclaimer, confirming that the property was indeed not an insured location under the policy. Only after that ruling—more than five years after the original disclaimer—did the insured file suit against the broker for negligent failure to procure the requested coverage.  However, the statute of limitations for negligent failure to procure claims in New York State is three years. The insured argued that the insurer’s continued defense during the declaratory judgment action effectively masked the significance of the disclaimer and should be treated as tolling the statute of limitations. The insured contended that it was reasonable to wait for the outcome of the coverage litigation before pursuing a claim against the broker, because the insurer’s defense created uncertainty about whether the disclaimer would ultimately stand. Both the trial court and the Appellate Division rejected this argument. The courts held that the claim accrued when the disclaimer letter was issued, because that was the moment the insured was placed on notice of the broker’s alleged negligence. The insurer’s voluntary defense during the declaratory judgment action did not create ambiguity about the disclaimer or delay the accrual of the claim.  Going forward, insureds will likely not wait for a final coverage determination before pursuing a negligent‑procurement claim against insurance brokers. Insureds who prefer to wait for the outcome of a coverage dispute will need to secure tolling agreements to avoid losing their claims against brokers due to expired statute of limitations periods.

Results

View all

Notable Victory Obtained in a New York Labor Law Action

We obtained a significant win in a New York Labor Law action, securing partial summary judgment for a municipal library and defeating the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on liability. The plaintiff alleged negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 and 241(6) after sustaining injuries when roof trusses collapsed on a construction project managed by a co-defendant on property owned by the municipal library. He claimed the collapse resulted from inadequate bracing. Following discovery, the plaintiff sought summary judgment under Labor Law § 240, asserting absolute liability against the library as the property owner. We opposed the motion and sought partial summary judgment dismissing all claims against the non-property-owning clients, all but the § 240 claim against the library, dismissal of the co-defendant’s cross-claims, and contractual and common law indemnification from the plaintiff’s employer. The court denied the plaintiff’s motion after finding questions of fact as to whether the plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of the accident. The court also granted our motion, dismissing all claims against the non-property-owning clients, all but the § 240 claim against the library, dismissing the co-defendant’s cross-claims, and granting the library unconditional contractual indemnification from the plaintiff’s employer prior to any finding of liability.

Arbitration Win Secured in a Case Involving Allegedly Unpaid Medical Bills

We secured an arbitration win, slashing a $83,000 claim to $625. The applicant, a major medical provider, filed an arbitration matter in the total amount of $83,625, alleging our client owed it for the claimant’s unpaid medical bills following a major motor vehicle accident. The claimant had been involved in the motor vehicle accident and sought payment for a series of medical treatments rendered post-accident. Counsel for the medical provider argued that the medical billing was never properly paid, therefore, payment of the claims was overdue. However, we successfully argued at the arbitration hearing that the applicant’s demand amount was greatly over exaggerated and that the amount in dispute must be limited to the appropriate fee schedule limit of $625.82. After arguments were heard, the arbitrator ruled in our client’s favor.

News

View all

Firm Highlights

Casey Alan Coyle Joins Marshall Dennehey's PA Appellate Practice as a Shareholder in Harrisburg and Philadelphia

News

Marshall Dennehey Expands Leading Pennsylvania Appellate Practice With Addition of Shareholder Casey Coyle

Result

No-Cause Jury Verdict Secured in Wrongful Death Trial

We successfully obtained a no-cause jury verdict in a 13-day wrongful death trial. The decedent, a 59-year-old man, was admitted to the emergency room on February 15, 2019, with complaints of abdominal pain, decreased appetite, and constipation, despite the use of laxatives. The patient did not complain of any nausea, vomiting, or diarrhea. He had a significant medical history including diabetes, hypertension, prior coronary artery stenting, morbid obesity (with past gastric bypass surgery), longstanding ventral hernia, and back pain. A CT scan revealed multiple hernias and a potential closed-loop bowel obstruction, leading to a surgery consultation. Our client, an emergency general surgeon, interpreted that the patient did not have a closed loop or any significant obstruction and recommended non-surgical management. The patient was approved to have clear liquids, and had a vomiting incident shortly after, but our client was not notified. The patient was returned to NPO status, and after improving overnight, he was returned to “clears” and additional medical and renal consults were ordered. Our client did not receive any communications from the residents/nurses of any changes in the patient’s condition. On February 18, 2019, two rapid responses were called due to increased heart rate and vomiting. It is believed that the vomiting resulted in aspiration, causing sepsis, ultimately leading to the patient’s death. During the trial, the plaintiff’s sole medical expert highlighted imaging on the wrong hernia, which called into question all of his opinions in the case. We made key objections related to the expert testimony, limiting what the allegations were, and preventing new allegations from being made. After approximately two and a half hours of deliberating, the jury returned a no-cause verdict. 

Thought Leadership

Featured Conversations... Key Takeaways from A.M. Best’s Webinar on the Misuse Defense in Product Liability Claims, Featuring Michael Salvati

Michael Salvati, shareholder in our Philadelphia office, was a panelist for the April A.M. Best webinar, “The Misuse Defense: Strategic Approaches to Defending Product Liability Claims for Insurers.” During the program, Michael and his fellow panelists offered practical, jurisdiction‑specific guidance on how misuse and failure‑to‑warn theories intersect in modern product liability litigation. Michael emphasized the unique challenges these claims present—particularly in states like Pennsylvania, where evidentiary rules diverge sharply from those applied in many other jurisdictions. Failure to Warn as the “Flip Side” of Misuse Salvati explained that failure‑to‑warn allegations often arise as a direct counter to a misuse defense. As he noted, “If our misuse defense is that the plaintiff didn't use a product properly or safely, then the failure to warn claim is that we didn't tell them how to use it properly.” He emphasized that these claims can stem from either the absence of warnings or criticisms of existing warnings, such as insufficient specificity or lack of clarity about risks. Pennsylvania’s Unique Evidentiary Landscape One of Salvati’s most notable points was the stark difference in how Pennsylvania treats evidence of compliance with industry standards. He highlighted that Pennsylvania is “one of the only states…where that evidence is not admissible” in strict liability cases. Manufacturers cannot rely on compliance with ANSI, UL, ISO, or even federal safety standards to defend the product against a strict liability claim—because the focus is solely on the product itself, not the manufacturer’s conduct. Salvati acknowledged the challenge this creates for defense counsel and clients who expect such compliance to carry weight. Understanding the Three Defect Theories Salvati also walked through the three primary defect theories recognized in many jurisdictions: - Design defect – a flaw in the product’s intended design - Manufacturing defect – a deviation affecting a specific unit - Failure to warn – inadequate instructions or warnings He noted that warnings claims are increasingly significant and sometimes stand alone when design or manufacturing theories are weak. As he put it, plaintiffs often default to warnings claims because “the default position seems to be, ‘If I got hurt, there must be something wrong.’” Warranties and State‑by‑State Variations Salvati addressed how breach‑of‑warranty claims fit into the broader framework, explaining that implied warranties—such as merchantability—often overlap with strict liability in Pennsylvania. He emphasized the importance of understanding local nuances, as warranty law and admissibility rules vary widely across states. Looking Ahead: The Growing Importance of Warnings In his closing remarks, Salvati stressed that warnings should never be treated as an afterthought in product liability defense. He observed that warnings‑only claims are becoming more common and urged manufacturers and insurers to continually evaluate the clarity and completeness of their instructions and warnings. His takeaway: “We should always be talking about what are the instructions that come with our products…to bolster a misuse defense.” Listen to the complete webinar here: https://www3.ambest.com/conferences/events/eventregister.aspx?event_id=WEB1074.

Congratulations to our 2026 Florida Super Lawyers & Rising Stars: Elizabeth Ferguson, A.C. Nash, Taylor Naughton, Sophia Philor, Amara Rodriguez

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Florida Super Lawyers & Florida Rising Stars

Result

Summary Judgment Secured, Preserving $750,000 in Coverage for Insured in Major Trucking Liability Dispute

Ray Freudiger and Michael A. Roberts (both of Cincinnati) successfully obtained summary judgment on behalf of their client in a coverage dispute arising from a May 19, 2022, motor vehicle accident. A permissive driver operated a box truck for an interstate trucking company and caused severe injuries to two tort victims. Prior to the accident, the insured had procured a commercial auto policy for the trucking company with stated limits of $1,000,000. Following the accident, the insurer initiated a declaratory judgment action asserting that only reduced bodily injury limits of $25,000/$50,000 applied and later counterclaimed, alleging it would not have insured the driver had he been properly submitted for approval under the policy. After extensive discovery, briefing, and oral argument, the court rejected the insurer’s attempt to shift responsibility for the $750,000 in coverage it was legally required to provide for permissive drivers under Ohio law, granting summary judgment in favor of the insured and preserving $750,000 in liability exposure.

Thought Leadership

Vendor Cyber Attack Compromises PII of More Than 3 Million Hunting and Fishing License Holders in Texas

The Texas Parks & Wildlife Department (TPWD) announced earlier this month that one of its vendors which handles the sale of state hunting and fishing licenses was the victim of a cybersecurity attack. The threat actor appears to have exfiltrated personal driver’s license information, passport numbers, email addresses, phone numbers and addresses of over 3 million hunting and fishing license holders.  The State Parks Department advised that the attack did not compromise social security numbers, dates of birth or financial information. Texas Cyber Command, the state’s new cybersecurity authority formed to protect critical infrastructure and coordinate threat responses across state and local government, reportedly assisted in detecting and containing the attack. TPWD has already set up free credit monitoring for those impacted through Kroll.  According to press reports, no specific group has yet been identified as the perpetrator of the theft. TPWD also advised that business has not been interrupted and license sales were continuing. This incident once again demonstrates that cybersecurity is only as strong as the weakest link in the supply chain. Businesses must prioritize security across their own environments and those of their vendors and contractors as well.

blue facade of a hospital sign against blue sky

Result

Defense Verdict in Complex Medical Malpractice Trial

News

Veteran Trial Attorney Joseph M. Toddy Joins Marshall Dennehey’s Casualty Department in Philadelphia

Result

Unanimous Verdict Obtained in a Medical Malpractice Matter in Bergen County, New Jersey

Thought Leadership

The Enforceability of Online Arbitration Agreements Remains Unresolved in Pennsylvania, But the Pennsylvania Superior Court has Provided Substantive Guidance on the Issue

Key Points: The Pennsylvania Supreme Court confirms that an order compelling arbitration is not immediately appealable as collateral orders. The outcome of Chilutti II has generally left the substantive enforceability issues with browsewrap agreements unresolved in Pennsylvania. Until this issue is resolved by the Pennsylvania courts, companies operating in the Commonwealth should strive to ensure that their registration websites and/or application screens conspicuously present arbitration agreements in manners which ensure their users and consumers assent to the terms of the agreements by following the standards set forth in Chilutti I. Browsewrap agreements have been defined as agreements “‘in which a website offers terms that are disclosed only through a hyperlink and the user supposedly manifests assent to those terms simply by continuing to use the website,’ and typically do not require an electronic signature.” See, Cobb v. Tesla, Inc., 2026 WL 458470, at *1 n. 2 (Pa. Super. Feb. 18, 2026) (citation omitted). They are largely regarded as the “if you keep using this, you agree to everything buried in this link” terms embedded into almost every online agreement consumers and users sign before proceeding with purchases of goods and/or services. While consumers are generally aware of them, many almost never click on the link, nor read them in their entirety. This leaves many consumers and users ignorant of the terms and impact of such agreements. However, one’s ignorance of the otherwise neatly-tucked-away terms rarely renders them unenforceable. The issue of the enforceability of browsewrap agreements has been up for debate for some time in many jurisdictions, including Pennsylvania. Indeed, Pennsylvania had a brief grip on this issue for a period in time. Specifically, in 2023, an en banc Superior Court set forth heightened standards for companies to meet in order to secure assent and enforce browsewrap arbitration agreements. See Chilutti v. Uber Techs., Inc., 300 A.3d 430 (Pa.Super. 2023) (en banc) (“Chilutti I”) Chilutti I involved a husband and wife who sued Uber and its subsidiaries after the wife, a wheelchair bound passenger using Uber’s rideshare service, fell, struck her head, and lost consciousness due to her uber driver failing to provide a seatbelt and making an aggressive turn during the trip. The Chilutti’s filed a negligence lawsuit against Uber and its subsidiaries. In response, the defendants moved to compel arbitration, arguing that “the couple’s conduct on the company’s website and application — when they registered for the ridesharing service — signified that they agreed to be bound by the mandatory arbitration provision found in the hyperlinked terms and conditions.” The trial court granted the defendants’ petition and stayed the proceedings pending the results of arbitration, and the Chilutti’s appealed. On appeal, the Superior Court addressed two issues. First, it addressed the issue of whether it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal. A divided Superior Court determined that it did, with its basis for the holding being that the order from which the Chilutti’s appealed was a collateral order. Next, the Superior Court set out to address the merits of the Chilutti’s substantive claim. The Superior Court concluded that the parties lacked a valid agreement to arbitrate. Its rationale was that Uber’s website and application did not provide reasonably conspicuous notice of the terms to the Chiluttis. In reaching this decision, the en banc Superior Court held that browsewrap arbitration agreements are enforceable in Pennsylvania only if the registration website and application screens explicitly inform consumers that they are waiving the right to a jury trial, the registration process cannot be completed until the consumer is fully informed of this waiver, and, when the agreement is available via hyperlink, the waiver appears at the top of the first page of the terms in bold, capitalized text. Since the ruling, Pennsylvania courts have applied Chilutti I to determine if browsewrap agreements are enforceable.  For instance, the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas invoked Chilutti I to reject an agreement that lacked an express jury-trial waiver on the assent screen.  See Miller v. Festival Fun Parks, LLC, 92 WDA 2025 (C.P. Alleg. Cnty. Mar. 24, 2025). Similarly, the Superior Court has held that notice which failed to explicitly state the consumer was waiving a jury-trial right did not “me[e]t the strict burden set forth by our en banc Court in Chilutti I.” Pierce v. FloatMe Corp., 348 A.3d 1077, 1088 (Pa. Super. 2025). While the issue of enforceability of browsewrap agreements appeared to have been resolved by Chilutti I, Pennsylvania courts’ grip on this issue has been slackened by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s January 21, 2026, opinion in Chilutti II. See Chilutti v. Uber Techs., Inc., 349 A.3d 826 (Pa. 2026) (“Chilutti II”). Therein, the Supreme Court did not address the merits of the Chiluttis’ substantive claim, but rather the issue of whether the Superior Court had appellate jurisdiction to immediately review the orders staying litigation pending arbitration. The Court ultimately vacated the en banc opinion on jurisdictional grounds, holding that the Superior Court did not have appellate jurisdiction because the trial court’s order from which the Chiluttis appealed did not qualify as a collateral order and, thus, the Superior Court erred in holding to the contrary and lacked jurisdiction to entertain the merits” of the Chiluttis’ substantive claim. As such, Chilutti II has rendered Chilutti I nonbinding, and the issue of enforceability of online arbitration agreements remains unresolved. However, in light of the fact the Supreme Court did not address or comment on the merits of the Chiluttis’ appeal, Chilutti I is still meaningful. Specifically, it provides guidance as to the standards a company should strive to meet to ensure they have obtained users’ assent so that they are able to enforce online arbitration agreements. Additionally, it may serve as persuasive authority in judges’ evaluations of petitions and/or motions to compel browsewrap arbitration agreements until this particular issue is properly put before our appellate courts. Keanna works in our Pittsburgh, PA office. She can be reached at (412) 803-1174 or KASeabrooks@MDWCG.com.