.

Sara W. Mazzolla

Co-Chair, Amusements, Sports & Recreation

SWMazzolla@mdwcg.com

Portrait of Sara W. Mazzolla

As a shareholder in our Casualty Department and co-chair of the Amusement, Sports and Recreation Practice, Sara actively defends matters involving premises liability, amusements, sports and recreation, construction, automobile, and condominium/community association law. Sara also defends professional liability claims involving sports coaches and real estate professionals. Sara frequently provides seminars to NAFDMA, IAAPA, SERMA and RSA as well as to carriers and claims professionals.

In her career, Sara has defended Fortune 500 retailers, restaurant businesses, and major hospital networks in New Jersey premises liability actions. Sara routinely represents sports facilities, World and Olympic coaches, athletes, sports teams, and contractors in a wide array of matters.

Through her extensive background in the sport of figure skating, Sara provides a unique perspective to the defense of her sports-related clients. Sara is known for her dedication and consistency in achieving successful results for her clients. She is a former U.S. International Figure Skating Team Competitor, two-time U.S. National Figure Skating Championship Medalist (including winning a National Championship) and World Junior Team Member. Attributing many of her good qualities to her high level and successful participation in sports, Sara enjoys being a role model to young athletes and working with athletes to achieve their goals.

Sara received her juris doctor from Seton Hall University School of Law, where she defended juveniles through her work with the Seton Hall Law, Center for Social Justice, Juvenile Justice Law Clinic. During her time at Seton Hall Law, Sara externed for Judge Edwin H. Stern (on temporary assignment with the New Jersey Supreme Court) and Justice Virginia Long, and drafted memoranda on petitions for certification.

In conjunction with a pro bono organization, Partners for Women and Justice, Sara has successfully represented domestic violence victims in obtaining final restraining orders in New Jersey family court.

Sara is licensed to practice in New Jersey and New York.

    • Seton Hall University School of Law (J.D., 2012)
    • Drew University (B.A., 2002)
    • New Jersey, 2012
    • U.S. District Court District of New Jersey, 2012
    • New York, 2013
    • New Jersey Super Lawyers Rising Star (2021-2022)
      The Super Lawyers list is issued by Thomson Reuters. A description of the selection methodology can be found here. No aspect of this advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court of New Jersey.
    • American Bar Association
    • Defense Research Institute (Trucking Law)
    • Essex County Bar Association
    • Morris County Bar Association
    • New Jersey State Bar Association
    • New York State Bar Association
    • Partners for Women and Justice
    • Professional Skaters' Association
    • United States Figure Skating (Former Athletes Advisory Committee Member)
    • The International Amusement & Leisure Defense Association (IALDA), Vice President
    • Secured a unanimous 6-0 defense verdict in a New Jersey premises liability case after the jury found no negligence on the part of the defendant. The plaintiff alleged that a six-foot drill bit fell from a retail display, causing a concussion, post-concussion syndrome and permanent cognitive impairments. The defense demonstrated that the item was displaced only after an unidentified customer struck the shelving with a shopping cart and that there was no evidence store employees knew or should have known of the condition. Through surveillance video, fact witness testimony and expert evidence, the defense also established that the impact was inconsistent with the forces necessary to cause a concussion and highlighted alternative explanations for the plaintiff's claimed injuries. Following a six-day trial, the jury returned a complete defense verdict, finding the defendant was not negligent.
    • Successfully obtained a no cause verdict following a one-day non-jury trial (conducted virtually) in the Law Division of Hudson County for our client, a national trucking company. Plaintiff alleged the truck swerved into his lane causing property damage. We successfully argued that plaintiff’s identification of the trailer as belonging to our client was not dispositive on the issue of the identification of the company responsible for operation of the truck which was pulling the trailer at the time of the accident. The judge further found the police report was not admissible on the identification of the operator of the vehicle and also that regardless of identification, plaintiff failed to establish the operator was negligent.
    • Obtained summary judgment barring the application of the mode of operations charge in favor of major retailer.
    • Obtained a summary judgment on behalf of rock-climbing facility on the basis that waiver was enforceable and no reasonable jury could find that the client was grossly negligent based on client’s testimony of safety procedures, protocols and equipment in place at indoor rock-climbing facility.
    • Secured summary judgment for breach of contract and indemnification in a premises liability action.
    • Obtained Summary Judgment for a national concert promoter and public entity venue owner. Plaintiff purchased outdoor lawn seats for a concert at the PNC Bank Arts Center in Holmdel, New Jersey. After the show started it began to rain and plaintiff alleged the lawn area became slippery, wet and muddy. Plaintiff attempted to walk down the sloped lawn area towards the stage to buy her husband a beer. While doing so her foot got stuck in mud which formed with the rain and she suffered a severe ankle fracture which was surgically repaired.  The trial Judge dismissed the case on Summary Judgment and found plaintiff’s expert’s report to be unsupported. The court reasoned plaintiff could not present a claim of liability against the operator for failing to prevent the outdoor grass seating area from becoming wet and slippery when it rained. He also reasoned plaintiff could not prove the property was in a dangerous condition as defined by the New Jersey Tort Claims Act. We believe this decision will be helpful in defending other cases at the same venue involving similar facts.
    • Information Gathering for New Claims and Prevention of Spoliation, 5th Annual ideal3 Summit, Minneapolis, MN, June 2026
    • The Pros and Cons of Waivers in Your Rink, RSA Annual Conference, Las Vegas, NV, May 2026
    • Skating Industry Risk Management: Keeps the Good Times Rolling, RIMS Annual Conference, Philadelphia, PA, May 2026
    • Safety and Legal Prep, NAFDMA International Agritourism Association Convention & Expo, February 8, 2026
    • I’m Getting Sued. Now What? NAFDMA International Agritourism Association Convention & Expo, February 9, 2026
    • Risk Management and Understanding the Claims Process, NAFDMA International Agritourism Association Convention & Expo, February 10, 2025
    • Health Club Claims, Marshall Dennehey Client Webinar, February 5, 2025
    • Preparing A Claim for Trial, Marshall Dennehey Client Webinar, February 4, 2025
    • Roller Skating and Ice-Skating Management, SERMA, Webinar, December 17, 2024
    • Risk Management, Risk Shifting, & Corporate Formalities, NAFDMA International Agritourism Association, Webinar, July 11, 2024
    • Annual Anti-Discrimination and Harassment Training, Marshall Dennehey Client Webinar, May 18, 2023
    • Partners For Women In Justice

Results

View all

Summary Judgment Won in a Dog Bite Case in New Jersey

We secured summary judgment in a general liability case involving a dog bite. The plaintiff alleged a laceration to the face from a dog bite. The dog was owned by a co-defendant, not by our client, the landlord of the property where the bite occurred. There were no issues of material fact or proof to support a theory of liability under strict or ordinary negligence, and no behavioral signs of aggression were observed by the plaintiff or the property owner’s son who hosted the party where the plaintiff was bitten. We argued that the elements under both theories could not be met, and the judge agreed, granting summary judgment.

Summary Judgment for National Concert Promoter

We obtained summary judgment for a national concert promoter and public entity venue owner. The plaintiff purchased outdoor lawn seats for a concert at the PNC Bank Arts Center in Holmdel, New Jersey. After the show started, it began to rain, and the plaintiff alleged the lawn area became slippery, wet and muddy. The plaintiff attempted to walk down the sloped lawn toward the stage to buy her husband a beer. While doing so, her foot got stuck in mud which formed with the rain, and she suffered a severe ankle fracture that was surgically repaired. The trial judge dismissed the case on summary judgment and found the plaintiff’s expert’s report to be unsupported. The court reasoned the plaintiff could not present a claim of liability against the operator for failing to prevent the outdoor grassed seating area from becoming wet and slippery when it rained. He also reasoned the plaintiff could not prove the property was in a dangerous condition as defined by the New Jersey Tort Claims Act.

Thought Leadership

View all

Case Law Alerts

New Jersey Appellate Division Affirms Dismissal of Slip-and-Fall Suit at Concert Venue

July 1, 2025

The plaintiff claimed she was injured when she slipped and fell on a wet floor at a concert at the Prudential Center. The defendants argued there was no actual or constructive notice of a spill and, therefore, they breached no duty owed to the plaintiff.  The defendants presented uncontroverted evidence of inspection patrols of the area. The plaintiff argued that the defendants had directed her to her seat and had permitted open containers. However, the plaintiff presented no evidence of how long the liquid had been on the floor or its source; therefore, she was unable to establish her theories of liability under basic negligence and mode of operations. The mode of operations did not apply simply because there were open containers handed to customers. In this case, there was no self-service component established by the plaintiff.  In its de novo review, the New Jersey Appellate Division confirmed that the trial court’s ruling was correct and there was “no evidence of a liquid, where it came from, and if it was ever there, how long it had been on the floor.” The appellate panel’s decision summarily dismissed the plaintiff’s negligence claims as to the janitorial entities at the arena.    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

New Jersey Court Dismisses Baseball Team’s Fiduciary Duty Claim Against Board Member, Citing Lack of Individual Liability Under Florida Law

April 1, 2025

The New Jersey District Court dismissed the plaintiff’s breach of fiduciary duty claim, applying Florida law to determine that no cause of action existed against an individual board member of a not-for-profit entity. In this suit brought by a minor league baseball team, the Volcanoes, the court dismissed the plaintiff’s second amended complaint, which alleged a single claim for breach of fiduciary duty against an individual defendant, Goldklang, a member of the Board of Trustees.  While the suit arose out of the allegedly undermined negotiations impacting various entities in minor league baseball, the New Jersey District Court determined that a Rule 12(b)(6)—failure to state a claim—dismissal was appropriate when it applied Florida law to determine that there was no cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty against the individual board member. The statute imposed only a limited duty on a not-for-profit entity (the corporation).  The court determined there was no support for the allegation that “the directors of a not-for-profit corporation owe their members—rather than the corporation—fiduciary duties,” and dismissed the action against the individual board member.    Case Law Alerts, 2nd Quarter, April 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 © 2024 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.

Events

View all

Conference

RISKWORLD 2026

May 3-6, 2026

Philadelphia, PA

Sara W. Mazzolla and Francis X. Wickersham

Firm Highlights

Result

$19 Million Medical Malpractice Verdict Overturned

In this medical malpractice case, the trial court vacated $10 million of a $19 million verdict in post-trial motions and the Superior Court of Pennsylvania vacated the remaining $9 million on appeal.

Thought Leadership

Commonwealth Court Reaffirms the Constitutionality of Act 111's IRE Provisions

In this case, the claimant sustained a work injury of January 6, 1994, which was acknowledged by Notice of Compensation Payable (NCP). After the claimant’s receipt of 104 weeks of temporary total disability benefits, the employer filed a Request for an Impairment Rating Examination (IRE). The IRE was performed in May 2023 and the IRE physician found that the claimant had a 5% whole person impairment, under the AMA Guides. The employer filed a Petition based on the IRE results, and the Petition was granted by the WCJ. During litigation, the claimant argued that the IRE provisions of Act 111 (Section 306(a.3) of the Act) were not applicable to her injury, since it predated June 24, 1996, the date Act 57 went into effect, and that the IRE provisions were unconstitutional. The Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ)) granted the Petition and the Board affirmed. On appeal to the Commonwealth Court, the claimant argued that Act 111 violated the nondelegation doctrine and that its retroactive application to the claimant’s injury was unconstitutional. The court rejected the arguments on the basis that they had already found the same arguments without merit in multiple, prior cases. The court also addressed an argument made by the claimant that Act 111 was procedurally defective under the Pennsylvania Constitution because it was only considered on two days in each House after having undergone amendments and reassignments. The court noted that the Pennsylvania Constitution requires every bill to be considered on three different days in each House. The claimant maintained that, according to the legislative history, the bill did not receive three separate days of consideration from each House when it was assigned a new bill number. The court pointed out, however, that the bill number, H.B. 1840 remained constant and was considered on three occasions by the House. Further, the court concluded that minor amendments to the bill were germane to its original subject, which was to modify the Act’s IRE process, in accordance with Protz II.

Result

Statutory Employer Immunity Upheld

In this construction accident case that resulted in a $5 million verdict, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania upheld the Statutory Employer Doctrine, which immunizes general contractors and other contractors on construction sites when certain elements are satisfied.

Thought Leadership

WCJ Improperly Refused to Conduct C&R Hearing and Erroneously Required Settlement of All Pending Petitions

In this case, the claimant sustained injuries in the course and scope of her employment as a registered nurse. The employer acknowledged the injury by a Notice of Compensation Payable (NCP).  Subsequently, a Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) expanded the description of injury. The employer then filed a Termination Petition, alleging the claimant was fully recovered from the injuries. Providers filed Utilization Review (UR) Petitions, challenging UR determinations finding their chiropractic treatment to be not reasonable and necessary. A settlement of the claim was eventually reached, and the employer filed a Petition to Seek Approval of a Compromise and Release (C&R) Agreement. The C&R outlined that the agreement fully resolved all future workers’ compensation claims except for the termination and UR Petitions. Briefs were filed and one day later, the WCJ issued an Interlocutory Order which stated if instructions were not followed regarding filing of a C&R, a settlement hearing date would not be given. The employer complied with the order, and filed the C&R. Subsequently, the WCJ notified the parties that the C&R must resolve all issues in the petitions, or would not be entertained. A settlement hearing was never held, and the WCJ then issued a decision, granting the Termination Petition and dismissing the UR Petitions. The WCJ also said that the Petition for Approval of a C&R was dismissed without prejudice, as the issues in the Termination and UR Petitions went to a decision. The claimant appealed to the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Board). The Board granted the claimant’s appeal, finding that the WCJ violated the requirement of Section 449 that an expedited hearing be held when a Petition for Approval of a C&R is filed.  The Board further held that it was legally incorrect for the WCJ to insist that the C&R resolve all issues raised by the pending Petitions. The Board remanded the case to a new WCJ, and Employer appealed to the Commonwealth Court. The court affirmed the Board and held that the WCJ erred, as a matter of law, by refusing to hold an expedited hearing within 30 days, once the Petition for Approval of a C&R was filed.  The court noted that the language of Section 449(b) is mandatory, and a settlement hearing is not discretionary or dependent on a party’s separate request for a stay, or whether the record has been closed. The court further rejected Employer’s argument that the case should not be remanded to a new WCJ for a new decision on the termination and and UR Petitions, as the Board passed no judgment on whether the C&R Agreement resolved the termination and UR Petitions, and left it for the WCJ to decide in connection with the Petition for Approval of a C&R.

Bret E. Dubbert Joins Marshall Dennehey’s Orlando Office as Special Counsel in the Casualty Department

News

Bret E. Dubbert Joins Marshall Dennehey’s Orlando Office as Special Counsel in the Casualty Department

Result

$1.09 Billion Products Liability Verdict Overturned

In this products liability crashworthiness case, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania reversed a Philadelphia jury verdict of $1.09 billion, the largest verdict ever overturned by a PA appellate court.  The court ordered a new trial based on deficient jury instructions, clarified important aspects of crashworthiness law, and confirmed that so-called standard jury instructions may be incompatible with Pennsylvania law. 

Marshall Dennehey Named a Standout in Litigation by BTI Consulting Group

News

Marshall Dennehey Named a Standout in Litigation by BTI Consulting Group

Thought Leadership

Appellate Division Reversed Trial Judge's Orders Granting a Plaintiff's Section 40 Summary Judgement Motion

In Haskins v. Casey, et al., the plaintiff Dane Haskins worked for defendant Ekornes, Inc. (Ekornes) as a material handler. In June 2021, he filed a workers’ compensation claim petition for benefits due to a left shoulder injury in December 2020. He then resolved his workers’ compensation claim in November 2022 under an Order Approving Settlement. In January 2023, he filed a lawsuit against Ekornes and later amended to add additional claims and name other defendants, including the Ekornes president, chief financial officer, and director of human resources. In May 2025, a second amended complaint alleged that after he filed the workers compensation claim, Ekornes placed him on leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), denied his request for a work accommodation, and ultimately terminated him from employment in December 2021. He pleaded several causes of action asserting violations of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD) as well as fraudulent concealment and wrongful discharge. The plaintiff then moved for partial summary judgment, seeking an order enforcing Section 40 of the Workers’ Compensation Act (WCA) as well as summary judgment on his FMLA claims. The defendants opposed the motions and cross-moved for summary judgment on the FMLA claims. After arguments, the court entered an order in December 2025, denying the FMLA motion and cross motion and granting the plaintiff’s Section 40 motion. In the order, the court permitted the plaintiff to pursue compensatory damages at trial in connection with the bodily injury claim. The court also allowed the plaintiff to present evidence of any workers’ compensation benefits to support his claim. The court then denied the defendant's subsequent reconsideration motion in February 2026. The defendants that appealed the Section 40 aspect of the orders. In reviewing the appeal de novo, the Appellate Division rejected the plaintiff's argument that the work-related injury arose out of his discrimination claims under the LAD. The plaintiff argued that he should be able to pursue a personal injury claim as a part of his LAD claim, noting that the employer’s compensation carrier would be able to assert a lien against any recovery against his LAD claims. In distinguishing between the Richter vs. Oakland Board of Education, 246 N.J. 507 (2021) case, in which the Court found that any recovery would be subject to a Section 40 lien as the allegation was that the defendants failed to accommodate her pre-existing diabetic condition, which resulted in bodily injury. In this case, the Appellate Division indicated that there was no bodily injury caused by Ekornes’ failure to accommodate a pre-existing disability. Rather, the shoulder injury was a result of a workers compensation claim, for which he received appropriate benefits previously. The Appellate Division noted that if the plaintiff was successful in proving his LAD claims, he would be entitled to damages caused by the discriminatory discriminatory conduct such as lost wages and emotional distress damages and that there will be no Section 40 lien. In addition, the Appellate Division disagreed that the petitioner could present evidence about and seek damages for his shoulder injury at trial. Although the petitioner argued that a defendant who retaliated against an employee for filing a workers’ compensation claim should not benefit from the exclusivity provision of the WCA, the Appellate Division noted that the Legislature did not include this type of scenario in the statue nor did any of the case law recognize this type of claim as a remedy. As such, the Appellate Division reversed the December 2025 order granting the the plaintiff’s Section 40 summary judgment motion as well as the February 2026 reconsideration motion order. The Appellate Division noted that they did not intend to limit the plaintiff in his pursuit of his other claims on under the LAD, FMLA, and workers’ compensation retaliation causes of action.

Event

CLM 2026 Focus Conference

Allison joins three insurance industry leaders to discuss how cyber coverage disputes, the growing impact of social inflation on bodily injury claim valuation, and the use of artificial intelligence are reshaping the bad faith landscape. The panel will examine emerging sources of extra-contractual exposure, including evolving cyber insurance coverage issues and the challenges of accurately valuing bodily injury claims. Practical approaches to claim evaluation using AI, along with defense strategies designed to help prevent or successfully defend against bad faith litigation, will also be addressed. 

graphic announcing our 6 2027 Super Lawyers & Rising Stars

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2027 New Jersey Super Lawyers And Rising Stars