As a member of the firm's Professional Liability Department, Pauline focuses her practice on the defense of design and construction professionals, as well as builders and general contractors in lawsuits asserting claims regarding building and design-related deficiencies. These large and complex construction defect suits generally involve multiple parties and include issues of code violations, negligence, breach of contract and fraud, as well as insurance coverage claims under GL policies. Pauline has expanded her practice into the areas of employment litigation and public entity liability defense, including litigation related to municipalities and the exclusion of houses of worship in order to facilitate economic redevelopment (RLUIPA).
Pauline brought significant litigation experience when she joined the firm in 2009. Pauline was a construction litigation attorney representing builders and contractors, both independently and through their insurance carriers, in complex construction defect suits. Prior to entering the construction litigation arena, Pauline practiced personal injury and workers' compensation law representing large supermarket chains in the tri-state area.
In 1992 Pauline received her Bachelor of Arts from Brandeis University in Waltham, Massachusetts, graduating cum laude. She then went on to earn her juris doctor in 1996 from Seton Hall University School of Law in Newark, New Jersey. Pauline is admitted to the New Jersey and New York bars. Following law school, she served as judicial law clerk to the Honorable Mark A. Baber, J.S.C., in the Chancery Division, Family Part, Hudson County, New Jersey.
Results
Obtained Positive Outcome in a Construction Site-Related Personal Injury Case
We secured a positive outcome for our client in a construction site-related personal injury case in New Jersey. After a month of trial, we successfully placed the entirety of the plaintiff’s $4.2 million jury verdict against the remaining co-defendant. We also succeeded in placing all of our client’s costs and attorney’s fees on the co-defendant. In total, the judgment against the co-defendant was in excess of $7 million.
Summary Judgment Secured Against Leading Construction Defect Law Firm
We obtained a summary judgment on behalf of our architectural client against one of the top construction/design defect law firms in New Jersey. After three separate argument appearances, the court granted summary judgment, holding that the plaintiff’s expert’s report failed to substantively establish a deviation from the architectural standard of care.
Thought Leadership
Case Law Alerts
Closing the Loophole
July 21, 2026
On November 17, 2023, New York amended the Prompt Payment Act, establishing a 5% cap on retainage under section 765-c of the General Business Law. Specifically, this amendment limited any retainage withheld from a contractor or subcontractor on a private construction project to 5%. However, this amendment contained a significant gap: because the 5% limitation was not included among the void provisions enumerated in Section 757 of the General Business Law, owners and general contractors were able to circumvent the statutory cap through contractual provisions requiring higher retainage. Section 756-a of the General Business Law allowed the terms of a construction contract to supersede the Prompt Payment Act "except as otherwise provided" in the article. SB 5655, which went into immediate effect on December 19, 2025, closes this loophole by adding contract provisions that exceed 5% to be void and unenforceable under Section 757 of the General Business Law.
Case Law Alerts
New York’s AVOID Act Imposes Strict Deadlines on Third-Party Actions Starting April 2026
January 1, 2026
On December 19, 2025, Governor Kathy Hochul signed the Avoiding Vexatious Overuse of Impleading to Delay (AVOID) Act (L. 2025, ch. 704), amending CPLR § 1007 to impose, for the first time, strict deadlines on third-party practice in New York civil litigation. Effective April 18, 2026, the Act is intended to streamline cases and curb delay tactics caused by late or excessive impleading, while shifting greater responsibility to both defendants and plaintiffs to identify all potentially liable parties early in the case. Under the new rules, defendants must file third-party complaints within 60 days of serving an answer when based on contractual indemnification, or within 60 days of learning of a potentially liable party under common-law theories. Second-tier third-party actions must be filed within 45 days, with subsequent tiers limited to 30 days and then 20 days. Extensions are capped at 30 days absent a court order, and no impleader is permitted after the filing of the Note of Issue; late filings will be severed or dismissed without prejudice and may not later be consolidated back into the main action. Limited exceptions apply, including certain workplace injury claims against employers (such as “grave injury” cases or when the employer’s identity was unknown), where parties have up to 120 days from the relevant triggering event. While designed to accelerate litigation, the AVOID Act may introduce new practical challenges. Counsel—particularly in complex matters like construction cases—will need to investigate liability and pursue tenders much earlier, potentially leading to expanded discovery, additional depositions, and increased motion practice. Although rights to contribution or indemnity are preserved through separate actions, settlements with plaintiffs may waive contribution rights, complicating resolution and potentially giving plaintiffs a strategic tool to restrict third-party practice and risk transfer.
