.

Steven M. Christman

Portrait of Steven M. Christman

Steve concentrates his practice primarily in the defense of insureds and self-insureds involving casualty liability matters. His insurance coverage litigation experience includes the defense of reinsurers and excess insurers. Steve also focuses on a wide range of matters including construction litigation, professional liability, premises, product liability, toxic tort, automobile claims, and trucking and transportation litigation. He also serves as the Casualty Supervisor and Managing Attorney of the New York office, as well as a member of the firm's Board of Directors. In this capacity, he oversees the day-to-day operations for the entire office and team of attorneys ensuring that client matters are handled promptly, professionally and effectively.

Steve concentrates part of his practice in the area of retail liability.  He has defended hundreds of matters involving premises liability, retail theft, product liability and wrongful termination suits. Steve has represented numerous national retail chains including supermarkets, clothing stores, pet store chains, as well as distributors and manufacturers.

Steve is admitted to practice law in New York State Court, as well as the United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts. Steve has also litigated negligent roadway design cases in the New York Court of Claims. 

In 1994 Steve earned his B.A. degree in history from Providence College. He then attended the University of Dayton School of Law earning his juris doctor in 1997. During law school Steve was first introduced to the insurance defense industry working as a summer associate for the Law Office of Rumberger, Kirk and Caldwell in Tampa, Florida.

    • University of Dayton School of Law (J.D., 1997)
    • Providence College (B.A., with honors, 1994)
    • New York, 1999
    • U.S. District Court Eastern District of New York, 1999
    • U.S. District Court Southern District of New York, 1999
    • AV® Preeminent™ by Martindale-Hubbell®
    • New York County Bar Association
    • New York State Bar Association
    • Successful Strategies for Effective Mediation, Marshall Dennehey Client Seminar, July 20, 2022
    • Civil Litigation State of Affairs – The Impact of COVID-19 in New York and Connecticut& What’s Next, Marshall Dennehey Client Webinar, May, 2021
    • Jurisdictional Trends & The COVID-19 Impact on FL NY NJ & PA, Marshall Dennehey Virtual Client Presentation, December, 2020
    • In a hotly contested insurance coverage litigation action arising from an underlying labor law case, Steve was able to obtain summary judgment in favor of the defendant insurance carrier, convincing the court that based upon the carrier's extremely specific additional insured endorsement, the carrier not only did not have a duty to indemnify the insured seeking coverage, but also most importantly did not have any duty to defend this insured.
    • Participated in trial involving Labor Law 240(1) and 241(6) in Supreme Court, Bronx County case settled favorably following cross examination of plaintiff.
    • In a wrongful death action arising from alleged medical malpractice venued in Supreme Court, Bronx County, Steve's defense and investigation resulted in locating pertinent medical records regarding the decedent's treatment, which turned a case with significant exposure into forcing plaintiff to accept a nominal settlement.

Results

New York Labor Law Case Dismissed

We obtained summary judgment in New York County in a case where the plaintiff, a construction laborer, was struck by a rolling dumpster and sustained severe crush injuries to his left foot and leg. The plaintiff, the dumpster company and the subcontractors alleged our general contractor client was responsible for overall site safety. After obtaining billing and work records for the project, the client confirmed that it did not have any involvement in the project, and we moved for summary judgment. After oral argument, the court granted our motion in its entirety and dismissed the case and all cross-claims.

Defense Melts Plaintiff's Snow and Ice Claim.

We obtained summary judgment in the Supreme Court of Rockland County, New York. The plaintiff slipped and fell while walking to her mailbox during a severe winter storm in January 2016. The plaintiff initiated a lawsuit against her homeowners association and its snow removal contractor. We moved for summary judgment on behalf of the defendants, asserting that the plaintiff’s claim was barred by the storm-in-progress doctrine. In opposition to our motion, the plaintiff alleged the defendants failed to adequately salt the premises, that the defendants were aware of the icy conditions, and that the storm had ended prior to the plaintiff’s accident. In granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, the court found the defendants established that there was a storm in progress at the time of the plaintiff’s accident and that their efforts to prevent ice accumulation and remove snow did not create a hazardous condition. According to the court, the plaintiff’s testimony was self-serving, contradictory and a feigned attempt to create a material issue of fact as to when the storm came to an end.

Thought Leadership

Firm Highlights

Thought Leadership

Appellate Division Affirms Dismissal of Legal Malpractice Counterclaim Against Martin Law Firm

In Martin v. Loury, 2026 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1617 (App. Div. July 15, 2026), Martin Law Firm represented Kirk Loury in an employment matter Mr. Loury filed against his former employer, Concord Equity Group Advisors LLC (“Concord”). The allegations included, among other things, that Loury was not fairly compensated for his employment with Concord. After a bench trial finding in Loury’s favor, the Appellate Division remanded this matter in February 2016 for a second trial. During the second trial, Concord CEO, Lee Argush, testified to lower compensation estimate than first trial. On remand, the second trial judge awarded Mr. Loury the same damages as the first judge, finding Mr. Argush not credible. After the findings during the second trial, Martin Law Firm filed an action against Mr. Loury to recover legal fees and costs of representing Mr. Loury in a second bench trial and Mr. Loury filed a counterclaim against Martin Law Firm for legal malpractice, alleging he should have received an even higher award in the second bench trial. In this allegation, Mr. Loury, through his expert, claimed that Martin Law Firm should have recalled Mr. Loury to the stand to rebut Mr. Argush’s testimony to allege an alternative theory of damages. Mr. Loury’s expert admitted that the second judge already rejected Mr. Argush's theory and accepted Loury's damages theory. The trial court barred Mr. Loury’s expert and dismissed Loury's counterclaim with prejudice before convening the collection trial, and the jury ruled in Martin Law Firm’s favor. Mr. Loury appealed the trial court's pretrial rulings barring his liability expert from testifying in support of his legal malpractice counterclaim, denying his motion for summary judgment on that counterclaim, and denying his motion to amend his counterclaim by adding attorney Joseph A. Martin as a codefendant. In affirming the trial court’s decision, the Appellate Division held that the trial court properly excluded Loury’s expert testimony in the counterclaim against Martin Law Firm because the expert could not explain how calling Loury as a rebuttal witness would have increased damages when the second judge already rejected Mr. Argush's testimony and accepted Loury's damages theory, making the expert’s causation opinion speculative. The Appellate Division also held that the trial court properly denied Mr. Loury's summary judgment motion on his malpractice counterclaim because reasonable minds could differ on whether Mr. Martin's alleged failures would have changed the second judge's damages award, given the judge already found Mr. Argush not credible, creating genuine factual disputes precluding summary judgment. Also, the Appellate Division held that the trial court properly denied Loury's May 2023 motion to add Joseph Martin individually because the statute of limitations expired in February 2022, six years after the 2016 appellate remand when Mr. Loury incurred new legal costs, and relation back did not apply because Mr. Loury knew Mr. Martin's identity throughout and strategically chose to sue only Martin Law Firm in his 2019 counterclaim.