.

Assistant Director, Professional Liability Department

Chair, Architectural, Engineering and Construction Defect Litigation Practice Group

Portrait of Sunny Marie Sparano

Marshall Dennehey Shareholder Sunny M. Sparano Elected to Firm’s Board of Directors

January 5, 2024

Sunny M. Sparano, shareholder in Marshall Dennehey’s Roseland, New Jersey, office, was elected to the firm’s Board of Directors at its annual shareholders meeting on December 7, 2023. The position became effective on January 1, 2024 and she will serve a three-year term.

Sparano joined Marshall Dennehey’s Professional Liability Department in 2005. She has extensive experience in construction litigation and served as Vice Chair of the firm’s Architectural, Engineering and Construction Defect Litigation Practice Group from 2020 through 2023, at which time she was named Chair of the Practice Group.  In this capacity, she oversees a firm-wide team of attorneys who defend design and construction professionals in complex construction defect suits asserting claims involving building and design-related deficiencies. 

Sparano additionally handles products liability claims as well as environmental claims and serves as counsel in litigation involving leaking underground storage tanks, groundwater contamination, and claims pursuant to the New Jersey Spill Compensation Act.

Among her numerous professional activities, Sparano is a member of the Women’s Construction Litigation Alliance, a non-profit devoted to expanding the role of women in construction defect litigation. She is additionally a member of the New Jersey State, New York State and Essex County Bar Associations and is a frequent speaker at various construction defect conferences, including the annual West Coast Casualty Construction Defect Conference. 

Rated AV Preeminent by Martindale-Hubbell, she is recognized by the Best Lawyers in America organization for construction litigation. A graduate of Seton Hall University and Widener University School of Law, she is admitted to practice in New Jersey and New York. 

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.