Sean is an associate in the firm's Casualty Department where he handles all areas of general liability, premises liability, automobile liability, amusement liability, and civil rights litigation.
Prior to coming to the firm, Sean was an attorney at a local boutique civil rights firm. In this position, Sean handled matters for plaintiff employees and defendant employers alike in subject matters ranging from disability, race, age, and gender discrimination, sexual harassment, cannabis litigation, and whistleblower actions.
Sean received his juris doctor in 2020 from Rutgers Law School after having graduated from Ohio State University in 2017. Subsequent to graduating law school, Sean was a law clerk at the Bergen County Superior Court, Law Division, for the Honorable Avis Bishop-Thompson, now of the Appellate Division.
Sean is admitted to practice in both the State and District of New Jersey.
Results
Thought Leadership
Legal Update for Premises & Retail Liability
New Jersey Supreme Court Strengthens the Ongoing Storm Rule in Gallardo v. Walmart
August 24, 2026
The New Jersey Supreme Court recently expanded the protection afforded by the ongoing storm rule, under which commercial property owners generally have no duty to remove snow or ice while precipitation is actively falling absent unusual circumstances or a preexisting hazardous condition. In Gallardo v. Walmart, No. A-65-24 (N.J. July 30, 2026), the court significantly narrowed a common avenue plaintiffs have used to avoid summary judgment, holding that “ordinary efforts” to address winter conditions during an ongoing storm do not become actionable merely because an expert later claims those efforts made the conditions more dangerous. The case arose from a typical winter slip and fall. Mixed precipitation began around 11:30 a.m. Walmart's snow-removal contractor arrived about an hour later and salted the parking lot and walkways. Because accumulation was minimal, ranging from trace to 1/10th of an inch, the contractor did not plow. The plaintiff fell approximately 15 minutes after the salting was completed. The plaintiff did not contend that Walmart failed to respond to the storm. Instead, she argued that Walmart responded improperly. Her expert opined that salting without pretreating the lot caused melting and refreezing that resulted in black ice. That theory survived two summary judgment motions and ultimately persuaded a jury, which returned a verdict of approximately $1.33 million. The Appellate Division vacated the verdict because the jury had not been properly instructed on the ongoing storm rule, but remanded the matter for a new trial. The New Jersey Supreme Court reversed in a 4-3 decision and directed entry of summary judgment for Walmart. Applying Pareja v. Princeton International Properties, 246 N.J. 546 (2021), the Court concluded that Walmart's conduct fell within the protections of the ongoing storm rule. Salting a trace accumulation during an active storm was ordinary remediation, not the type of unusual circumstance that could give rise to a duty. The court further held that expert criticism of those efforts was insufficient to change that result. Following Pareja, plaintiffs frequently argued that a property owner forfeited the protection of the ongoing storm rule whenever an expert could identify some alleged flaw in the owner's response to the storm. Gallardo rejects that premise. The decision recognizes that imposing liability based solely on expert criticism of ordinary snow removal efforts would discourage property owners from taking any action during a storm and would undermine the very purpose of the doctrine. The ruling warrants a fresh look at pending winter premises liability cases involving active precipitation, minimal accumulations, mid-storm salting, alleged failures to pretreat, or expert opinions premised on melting-and-refreezing theories. Cases previously viewed as presenting substantial trial exposure may now be stronger candidates for summary judgment. At the same time, Gallardo does not eliminate all potential liability during an ongoing storm. A preexisting hazardous condition or genuinely unusual affirmative conduct may still support the imposition of a duty. Plaintiffs will also likely attempt to distinguish Gallardo based on the nature of the remediation efforts at issue and the specific facts of a case. The bottom line is that Gallardo strengthens the ongoing storm rule by restoring it as a meaningful summary judgment defense. Now, “ordinary” efforts to address winter conditions during an active storm do not become "unusual circumstances" simply because a plaintiff retains an expert to say they could have been done differently
Legal Updates for Real Estate E&O Liability
Appellate Division Provides Clear Guidance for Sellers, Brokers and Inspectors in Seller Disclosure Litigation
February 5, 2026
The New Jersey Appellate Division recently affirmed summary judgment for a home seller, her brokerage and agent, and a home inspector. The court found that the buyer failed to raise any genuine issue of material fact regarding alleged misrepresentations about the property’s sewer connection or the existence of a buried septic tank. Although the opinion is unreported, the court grounded its analysis in published New Jersey authority that continues to define the obligations of real estate professionals and home inspectors in nondisclosure cases. In Park v. Clemmons, A-1440-23, the buyer purchased a home in 2014. The Seller’s Property Condition Disclosure Statement and the home inspection report each stated that the home appeared to be connected to the municipal sewer system. All parties denied knowledge of a septic tank. Six years later, the buyer discovered an abandoned underground tank during renovation and sued for violations of the Consumer Fraud Act, common law fraud and breach of contract. Since the seller was a nonprofessional, the court applied the long standing principles from Byrne v. Weichert Realtors, 290 N. J. Super. 126 (App. Div. 1996), and Zaman v. Felton, 219 N. J. 199 (2014), which limit the Consumer Fraud Act liability to commercial sellers. The court, therefore, evaluated only the common law fraud and contract claims and found no evidence of falsity or knowledge, and no basis to infer reckless disregard for the truth. The central issue was whether the property lacked a municipal sewer connection and whether any defendant knew or should have known of the buried tank. The record established a 1974 municipal approval for sewer connection, tax bills that included sewer charges and the buyer’s own 2020 permit application to replace, rather than install, the sewer line. The court held that the buyer offered no evidence capable of rebutting these objective records. The mere existence of an abandoned tank did not demonstrate that the municipal connection was absent. The buyer also failed to retain an expert after the trial court found one was necessary to prove any defect, and this omission was fatal to his misrepresentation theories. In addition, the agreement of sale contained standard as-is language, a non-survival clause for seller representations and a clear inspection right—all of which defeated the buyer’s contract-based claims. The court, likewise, affirmed summary judgment for the home inspector. The inspection contract limited the inspection to visible and accessible conditions, and the buyer acknowledged that no visible indicators of a septic system were present. The court also applied the four-year statute of limitations for inspection claims, rendering the buyer’s suit untimely by two years. Although unreported, Park reflects well settled principles in New Jersey real estate law. A seller, broker or agent is not responsible simply because a latent condition surfaces years after closing. Courts continue to heavily rely on municipal records, transactional documents and other objective information when assessing the accuracy of a disclosure. Fraud claims still require real proof that a statement was false when made. Home inspection agreements that define the scope of the work remain enforceable, and claims against inspectors must be brought within the statutory period. In the end, the court’s reliance on established, published precedent reinforces the defenses that sellers, brokers, agents and inspection professionals have traditionally relied upon in these types of cases. Legal Update for Real Estate E&O – February 2026, is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent legal 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. We would be pleased to provide such legal assistance as you require on these and other subjects when called upon. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1 Copyright © 2026 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints or inquiries, or if you wish to be removed from this mailing list, contact MEDeSatnick@mdwcg.com
