As an experienced member of the Casualty Department, Paul concentrates his practice primarily on trucking/transportation liability, premises/retail liability, and construction injury litigation. Additionally, he handles cases in the fields of condominium/community association law, automobile liability, products liability and malpractice claims against real estate professionals. Paul is frequently retained by clients to handle the pre-suit investigation of high exposure cases involving complex issues of fact and law, including fatal commercial vehicle accidents.
Paul handles all aspects of civil litigation up to trial, including pleadings, depositions, expert discovery, dispositive motion practice, mediation and non-binding arbitration. He has obtained numerous favorable results for his clients, which range from individuals and small businesses to large-sized insurance companies. He has appeared on behalf of his clients in both New Jersey and New York state and federal courts. Paul has also argued before the New Jersey Appellate Division, where he successfully defended an appeal to affirm an order entering summary judgment on behalf of his client. Additionally, prior to joining Marshall Dennehey, Paul worked at a defense firm where he specialized as regional counsel for a Fortune 50 transportation company.
Paul attended Seton Hall University School of Law where he was a recipient of the Chancellor's Scholarship. While in law school, he completed over 200 hours of pro bono work in the Immigrants' Rights/International Human Right Clinic. Paul also worked as a judicial extern in the Superior Court of Essex County, Civil Division for the Hon. Paul J. Vichness, J.S.C. (Ret.) and as an intern in the Newark Public Defender's Office.
Prior to law school, Paul graduated from the University of Notre Dame, with a B.A. in Political Science and Spanish. He was a member of the Dean's List and Sigma Delta Pi (National Collegiate Hispanic Honor Society).
Results
Defense Verdict Returned After Short Jury Deliberation in High-Exposure New Jersey Trucking Case
Christopher Block and Paul Lanza (both of Roseland) successfully obtained a defense verdict in a trucking accident in New Jersey. The plaintiff claimed that our client merged into her lane at the George Washington Bridge toll plaza causing her to sustain neck and back injuries for which she underwent two spinal surgeries. Our client testified that both of their lanes ended and, because they were required to merge, he had the right-of-way since the front of his truck was ahead of the front of her vehicle. Our accident reconstruction expert confirmed that our driver had the right-of-way and opined that plaintiff was the sole cause of the accident. We also disputed the causation of plaintiff’s alleged injuries based on the very limited property damage to her vehicle, as well as the fact that she had prior, similar injuries. After a little more than an hour of deliberations, the jury returned a verdict finding that our driver was not negligent. The trial team was assisted by associate attorney Haleigh Catalano and paralegal Kelly Dermody who provided critical support with motions in limine and trial management.
Summary Judgment Obtained in Three Consolidated Cases Involving Multi-vehicle Accident
We secured summary judgment for our client, a tow truck company, in three consolidated cases venued in Essex County Superior Court arising out of a fatal motor vehicle accident caused by an illegal left-hand turn by a tow truck driver. The plaintiffs alleged that our client was liable under a theory of respondeat superior as the tow truck driver’s employer. The plaintiffs further alleged that our client negligently hired, trained, supervised and entrusted the vehicle to the driver. However, we established that our client sold the subject tow truck to a co-defendant tow truck company two weeks before the accident. The court found that the co-defendant’s deposition testimony did not suffice to create a genuine issue of material fact and granted our motion, dismissing all claims against our client.
Thought Leadership
Case Law Alerts
Florida Court Affirms Summary Judgment Based on Unrebutted Testimony of Phantom Vehicle in Rear-End Collision
July 1, 2025
This case arises out of a multi-vehicle accident in which the operator of the rearward vehicle claimed that she was rear-ended by a phantom vehicle, causing the chain of rear-end collisions. The other parties in the lawsuit testified, in general terms, that they did not see a phantom vehicle and had no recollection of a vehicle passing them immediately after the crash. The court held that their scant negative testimony was insufficient to overcome the unequivocal positive statement of the rearward driver, that there was a phantom vehicle, and affirmed the order for summary judgment. The court also noted that summary judgment could have been avoided by the opposing parties if there was evidence from a witness that “I looked where I should have been looking and there was nothing to see.” Case Law Alerts, 3rd Quarter, July 2025 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2025 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.
Case Law Alerts
NY Appellate Division Reverses Trial Court, Grants Summary Judgment to Middle Vehicle in Rear-End Collision
July 1, 2025
The owner and operator of the middle vehicle in a three-vehicle accident moved for summary judgment. The moving defendant argued that it was stopped 5 to 10 feet behind the plaintiff’s vehicle for approximately 5 seconds when their vehicle was struck from behind by co-defendant and pushed into the rear of the plaintiff’s vehicle. Their motion was denied at the trial court level. However, the Appellate Division reversed after finding that the plaintiff and the co-defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact and because the motion was not premature, as the opposing parties failed to demonstrate why further discovery was necessary. Case Law Alerts, 3rd Quarter, July 2025 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2025 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.
