Gallo Vitucci Klar LLP is proud to announce that 11 of our attorneys have been named to the 2026 Super Lawyers and Rising Stars lists. These honors recognize attorneys who have demonstrated exceptional skill, dedication, and professional achievement within their respective practice areas. With only 5% of lawyers in New York selected as Super Lawyers and just 2.5% named Rising Stars, we are proud to celebrate the continued recognition of our talented team.

2026 Super Lawyers

Our GVK 2026 New York Metro Super Lawyers include:

 

2026 Rising Stars

Our GVK 2026 New York Metro Rising Stars include:

Century Old Maritime Law Center Stage in Bridge Collapse

By James E. Mercante

Everyone saw the eerie footage of a 900-foot-long container ship taking down an entire bridge with one punch. Many rounds (and just over two years) later, the plethora of claims are nearly down for the count as well.

The referee in the matchups arising from the Francis Scott Key Bridge collapse, Maryland Senior U.S. District Judge James K. Bredar did a seaworthy job in pushing the billions of dollars of claims to a swift result with no trial.

What could be the final bell (unless reversed) came on Aug. 25, 2026, when Judge Bredar authored a 36-page decision in Matter of Grace Ocean Priv. Ltd., 2026 WL 2482018 (D. Md. Aug. 25, 2026), applying a nearly century-old economic loss rule to knock out the business interruption and purely economic loss claims.

Just prior to this decision, the shipowner and operator settled the State of Maryland’s claim for $2.25 billion dollars for complete destruction of the bridge, harm to the Patapsco River and surrounding environment, and economic loss. This was in addition to the $101 million settlement with the US Government for wreck removal, pollution abatement, and channel clearing activities.

No damage, No dough says Supremes

Hundreds of millions in private economic loss claims were filed in the litigation against the ship owners and its managers. But only a few of those claims resulted from actual physical damages, like the bridge itself. All other such claims were from local government claimants and private companies who could establish actual business interruption, loss of earnings and revenues caused by the bridge collapse but sustained no physical damage to their businesses.

The key distinction being purely economic loss flowing from someone else’s property damage versus economic loss associated with actual damage to a claimant’s property.

Thus, a claimant may indeed have sustained very real economic loss, but experienced no physical damage to its own property. In maritime law, this is where the line is drawn for permissible recovery…all stemming from a 1927 maritime case decided by the United States Supreme Court, known to any maritime lawyer worth his or her salt as the Robins Dry Dock economic-loss rule. Robins Dry Dock & Repair Co. v. Flint, 275 U.S. 303 (1927).

The Robins Dry Dock economic loss rule has been adopted by a majority of the federal courts, including the Fourth Circuit. The rule is a typical example of how admiralty courts developing general maritime law have woven casualties involving the sea with general tort concepts.

As Judge Bredar noted in the decision: The United States Supreme Court decided Robins nearly a century ago, applying a principle, then settled in both the United States and in England, which refused recovery for negligent interference with contractual rights. Matter of Grace Ocean, 2026 WL 2482018 at *5.

Robins Dry Dock was a unanimous 9-0 decision, and Justice Holmes wrote the opinion. To recover under Robins, a claimant must have a proprietary interest in property that was physically damaged. These economic claims, explained Judge Bredar, “loomed large” in the litigation and the time was ripe to pick it apart: [T]he time has come to face the implications of Robins and the near-century of case law that has interpreted and applied it. Matter of Grace Ocean, 2026 WL 2482018 at *1.

And, such claims have been repeatedly denied for decades in admiralty. As Justice Holmes noted in Robins Dry Dock, “[t]he law does not spread its protection so far.” 275 U.S. at 309.

Will Any Exceptions Hold Water?

At the core, the claimants with no physical damage pursuing losses were relying upon nonbinding dicta in some maritime tort decisions that seem to infer Robins Dry Dock would not apply to an intentional tort or a criminal act. Here, the companies that managed the ship and the ship’s chief engineer have been indicted so there appeared to be some whiff of hope if there is any merit to such alleged exception.

But the District of Maryland did not agree, reasoning that the cases cited by the Claimant “reflect an exception not for intentional conduct generally, but for situations where the wrongdoer intentionally targeted a plaintiff’s economic interests… [i]ndeed, the key to these cases… is not merely that the tort is intentional, but that the tortfeasor knew of the plaintiff’s contractual relation and intended to interfere with it.” Matter of Grace Ocean, 2026 WL 2482018 at *18 (internal citations and quotations omitted).

In reaching its conclusion as to the suggested intentional conduct/criminal act exception, the District Court relied on the holding and reasoning of Nautilus Marine, Inc. v. Niemela, 170 F.3d 1195 (9th Cir. 1999), a Ninth Circuit decision where the Claimant was a charterer “who suffered no property damage because it did not own either of the damaged vessels.” There, the Ninth Circuit refused to apply the suggested exception:

The exception urged by [Claimant] would threaten to deprive the rule of much of its practical effect. The line between recklessness and negligence is sufficiently indistinct that extensive litigation would be likely to ensue before Robins Dry Dock could be applied in any case. Nautilus Marine, 170 F.3d at 1197.

Todd D. Lochner, a counsel for the economic loss claimants’ states “this is where we expected October 2, 2026 to be: one step from the Supreme Court, seeking a criminal-conduct exception to Robins.”

In the other corner, William R Bennett III, a counsel for shipowners countered “there is no course for the economic loss claimants to recover. They cannot navigate around Robins Dry Dock.”

The appeals have already been filed to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. This could be full steam ahead to the United States Supreme Court… a court that has a fond affinity for admiralty cases dating back to 1796 and including such notable cases as the TITANIC, EXXON VALDEZ oil spill, the DEEPWATER HORIZON drill ship blow out, and the recent GREAT LAKES INSURANCE/RAIDERS RETREAT REALTY Choice of Law under marine insurance contracts.

This ruling illustrates how powerful the Robins Dry Dock doctrine remains in maritime tort litigation. The law can be devastating for ports, terminal operators, shippers, logistics companies, longshore workers, and local businesses such as restaurants and hotels. At the same time, “it is no surprise that the precise scope of the Robins rule has been subject to debate.” Matter of Grace Ocean, 2026 WL 2482018 at *6.

Various admiralty courts “established various exclusions and exceptions to the rule, identifying categories of claims that may proceed—despite seeking recovery of economic damages flowing from harm to property not owned by the claimant.” Matter of Grace Ocean, 2026 WL 2482018 at *6.

Act of Congress?

Claimants now face the Robins “uphill battle” that we predicted previously in this Admiralty column. See, James E. Mercante “DALI DRAMA: Baltimore Bridge to Nowhere”, New York Law Journal, Admiralty Law (Volume 275, #56, March 25, 2025).

With a fast track to the United States Supreme Court, the question lurks as to whether an exception will be carved out here for the Claimants, or, whether Congress would intervene like it did with Exxon Valdez (Supreme Court carved out a Robins exception in Exxon Valdez for commercial fisherman, leading Congress to pass the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 which, among many other things, explicitly permited third parties like commercial fishermen and tourism operators to recover pure economic damages for oil spill claims even if they did not own the damaged physical property).

On the other hand, perhaps the Maryland bridge collapse will be viewed as the type of unforeseeable chain reaction casualty in which the Supreme Court intended to limit recoverable damages in cases that inherently involve “potential for boundless, indirect damage”. Matter of Grace Ocean, 2026 WL 2482018 at *5.

We will soon see whether Robins celebrates 100 years and remains firmly grounded!

JAMES E. MERCANTE is Maritime partner at Gallo Vitucci Klar. He is president of the Board of Commissioners of Pilots of the State of New York and US Navy Captain (Retired). JOANNA M. GRILLO, Maritime associate at the firm assisted in the preparation of this article.

Patrick Cooney and Anais Holland-Rudd successfully secured a defense verdict in Bronx County Supreme Court in a motor vehicle collision case involving significant injuries and disputed liability.

Plaintiff sustained multiple fractures and was hospitalized for five days following a collision in Woodbury, New York. Plaintiff alleged that he was struck while attempting to re-enter traffic after pulling onto the shoulder of the roadway, but maintained that he had checked his mirror and observed a vehicle approximately one-half mile away before pulling into the lane.

The defense presented evidence that Plaintiff’s vehicle unexpectedly entered the roadway as our Defendant observed Plaintiff’s vehicle stopped on the shoulder close ahead. As he approached, Plaintiff suddenly pulled away from the curb and appeared to be attempting to make a U-turn across the highway.

The physical evidence supported the defense’s account. The points of impact, including damage to the left rear portion of Plaintiff’s vehicle and the front end of the defendants’ vehicle, were consistent with the defense’s version of the accident. The defense also presented testimony from an independent eyewitness who was traveling directly behind them at the time of the accident.

An accident reconstructionist further supported the defense by recreating the accident and explaining vehicle data retrieved from the defendants’ vehicle’s Airbag Control Module (ACM) to the jury. They testified regarding the significance of the data and the physical evidence, concluding that the evidence supported the defense’s position that Plaintiff was attempting to make a U-turn.

During the trial, the Court determined that Plaintiff had sustained a serious injury as a matter of law. The Court also indicated that it was prepared to direct a verdict finding the Defendant negligent based on the vehicle data indicating that he had been traveling above the speed limit.

Anais Holland-Rudd successfully challenged that proposed finding, arguing that the ACM data had not been independently verified as accurate by an expert and, therefore, could not establish negligence per se. The Court ultimately agreed with the defense’s position and declined to direct a verdict on negligence.

After some deliberation, the jury returned a defense verdict, finding that the defendant was not negligent.

The successful result was a collaborative effort involving the trial team and supporting staff.

The verdict also marks an especially significant accomplishment for Anais Holland-Rudd, who secured the defense verdict in her first civil trial.

Congratulations to Patrick Cooney and Anais Holland-Rudd on this outstanding defense victory and tremendous result for their clients!

Martin Rowe,, a Partner in our New York office, successfully secured a unanimous defense verdict in the Eastern District of New York in a rear-end collision case involving significant claims of future medical treatment and damages.

Plaintiff, age 41, alleged that he sustained various injuries as a result of the collision. Liability was conceded, and the trial proceeded on damages only. Plaintiff sought over $2 million in damages, including more than 36 years of future medical costs.

Plaintiff underwent an extensive course of treatment following the accident, including treatment with multiple physicians, chiropractors, and physical therapists. He ultimately underwent surgical procedures to his shoulder and spine. At trial, Plaintiff’s treating physicians testified that he would require ongoing medical care, including additional spinal surgeries, for the remainder of his life.

The defense presented testimony from orthopedic and spine specialists who opined that Plaintiff’s conditions were largely attributable to pre-existing degenerative changes and that the surgeries he underwent, as well as the additional surgeries recommended for the future, were not necessary or causally related to the accident.

During closing arguments, Martin delivered a compelling presentation highlighting the photographs of Plaintiff’s vehicle, which showed no damage, as well as inconsistencies in Plaintiff’s testimony regarding how the accident occurred. Martin also focused heavily on Plaintiff’s claim for future damages, noting that Plaintiff sought medical costs for more than 36 years despite having received no treatment for the past two years, while raising questions regarding the financial interests involved in Plaintiff’s proposed future care.

The eight-person jury returned a unanimous verdict in favor of the Defendants, finding that Plaintiff failed to meet any category of the serious injury threshold under New York Insurance Law § 5102(d).

This result reflects a complete defense victory for our clients and an outstanding trial result for Martin Rowe.

Congratulations to Martin Rowe on this exceptional defense victory and tremendous result for our clients!

Andrew Kaye, a Partner in our New York Labor Law construction practice, successfully secured dismissal of all Labor Law claims in a ladder tip-over case in Supreme Court, Rockland County.

Plaintiff, a refrigerator mechanic, was using a ladder while tending to our insured’s commercial freezer when the ladder tipped over. Plaintiff alleged violations of Labor Law §§ 240(1), 241(6), 200, and common law negligence.

Through discovery, including a video of the accident, we developed defenses addressing the specific allegations and claims asserted by Plaintiff. Following discovery, Plaintiff moved for summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240(1) claim, arguing that the ladder had fallen over. We moved for dismissal of all claims. The Court granted our motion in its entirety.

In support of our position for dismissal of the Labor Law § 240(1) claim, we argued that Plaintiff was performing routine maintenance at the time of the accident. Highlighting Plaintiff’s admissions that he was inspecting the freezer pursuant to an oral monthly maintenance agreement, the Court held that Plaintiff was performing routine maintenance, thereby eliminating the applicability of Labor Law § 240(1).

As to the Labor Law § 241(6) claim, we reiterated our routine maintenance argument and further established that the work Plaintiff was performing did not fall within the scope of Labor Law § 241(6). Labor Law § 241(6) applies to workers involved in the construction and demolition of buildings and is not as broad in its application as Labor Law § 240(1). This is a defense that can often be overlooked when evaluating these claims. Here, the Court agreed that Labor Law § 241(6) was not applicable.

Lastly, with respect to the Labor Law § 200 and common law negligence claims, we highlighted the accident video, our insured’s lack of control over Plaintiff’s work, and the unreliability of Plaintiff’s expert’s conclusions. Despite Plaintiff’s self-serving claims that our insured forced him to use the ladder in the improper manner in which he was using it at the time of the accident, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s Labor Law § 200 and common law negligence claims.

This result reflects a complete defense victory for our insured, with all claims dismissed and no liability attributed to our client.

Congratulations to Andrew Kaye on this successful outcome.

In a ruling clarifying commercial tenant liability, the Appellate Division, First Department recently issued a decision in Fuentes v. Parkchester South Condominium, Inc., affirming that a commercial tenant moving for summary judgment “is not required to prove a negative proposition” by affirmatively showing it did not cause a sidewalk defect where it has no maintenance duty and no evidence links it to the alleged condition.

The case arose from a trip-and-fall accident on a sidewalk crack adjacent to a cellar door used by a commercial tenant, Leroy Pharmacy. The Pharmacy had no responsibility for sidewalk maintenance under the lease with the property owner and moved for summary judgment upon the completion of discovery. In opposition, Plaintiff argued that the tenant’s use of the cellar doors constituted a “special use,” and argued (without any expert testimony) that the tenant may have caused the condition. The First Department disagreed, holding that “”A commercial tenant moving for summary judgment is not required to prove a negative by establishing that it did not cause or create the alleged defect where there is no evidence that it did so.”

In dismissing the claims against the tenant, the court affirmed that a commercial tenant moving for summary judgment meets its burden of proof on a motion for summary judgment by establishing that it has no statutory or contractual (legal) duty to maintain the sidewalk. The Court specifically held that that “A defendant’s motion papers establishing prima facie that it had no control over, or responsibility for, the premises in question suffices to shift the burden of production to the plaintiff.” The burden of proof then shifts to the Plaintiff to demonstrate a causal connection between the defect and the tenant’s use of the sidewalk with evidence, not just speculation.

This decision serves as a key precedent for commercial tenants in New York and was included in the New York Law Journal’s Decisions of Interest section on July 8, 2026.

GVK is proud to support the Defense Association of New York (DANY) and celebrate our Partner, Patrick W. Kenny, Esq., who was sworn in as President-Elect of DANY on July 20, 2026, during the annual DANY Golf Outing.

It was a great day spent with clients, colleagues, and friends on the course, and we congratulate Patrick on this well-deserved leadership role. We wish him continued success as he serves the DANY and its members.

Christopher L. Parisi, a Partner in our New York Labor Law construction practice, successfully secured summary judgment and dismissal in a premises liability case in Bronx County, New York.

In this case, the Plaintiff alleged a trip and fall accident after stepping from a public bus into the street.  The Plaintiff claimed that the accident was caused by a “pothole” or “uneven street surface”.

GVK’s insured clients were two paving subcontractors that had performed work in the vicinity of the alleged accident approximately two years prior.  Parisi moved for summary judgment on the basis that our clients’ work was not in the exact location of the alleged accident, and that the work did not cause a defect in the roadway.

After reviewing the evidence and testimony, the Court decided that the work of GVK’s clients “has not been shown to relate to the alleged defect on the roadway…”, and that they “…have been dismissed from the case based on the failure of any party to connect them to Plaintiff’s accident”.

This result reflects a complete defense victory for our clients, as the matter was dismissed with no liability attributed to our clients.

Congratulations to Christopher L. Parisi on this successful outcome.

GVK is pleased to announce the promotion of David Landfair to Partner. This achievement reflects David’s outstanding dedication, strong advocacy on behalf of our clients, and meaningful contributions to the continued growth and success of the firm.

David joined Gallo Vitucci Klar LLP in 2024, bringing extensive experience in personal injury protection litigation and civil litigation matters. He has successfully represented both plaintiffs and defendants and has briefed and argued appeals before multiple New York courts, including Appellate Division, First and Fourth Departments, and the Appellate Term, Second Department.

We are excited to recognize this significant milestone in David’s career and look forward to his continued accomplishments and leadership at GVK.

 

 

Gallo Vitucci Klar LLP is pleased to announce the promotion of eight attorneys, Svitlana Astakhova, Amanda Aiello, Mark Chereshinsky, Deena Khalifa, Matthew Langweil, Sean Hughes, Joshua Shack, and Lauren Cedeno, to Of Counsel in recognition of their continued dedication, leadership, and outstanding contributions to the firm and its clients.

 

Please join us in congratulating:

Svitlana Astakhova concentrates her practice on civil tort litigation, with experience handling personal injury matters including auto, general, and premises liability.

Amanda Aiello concentrates her practice on civil tort litigation, including premises liability, construction accident, construction defect, labor law, and general liability matters.

Mark Chereshinsky concentrates his practice on construction defect and contractual claims, as well as general liability actions.

Deena Khalifa concentrates her practice in No-Fault matters and brings a strong background in insurance defense, managing a large and fast-paced caseload with exceptional attention to detail.

Matthew Langweil concentrates his practice on general liability, automotive liability, and premises liability matters.

Sean Hughes concentrates his practice on labor law and premises liability defense and brings extensive courtroom experience from his prior role as an Assistant District Attorney for over seven years.

Joshua Shack concentrates on the defense of No-Fault/PIP claims, drawing on his prior experience as in-house counsel for an insurance company.

Lauren Cedeno concentrates her practice on the defense of general liability, premises liability, and New York Labor Law matters.

 

Each of these attorneys has consistently demonstrated exceptional legal skill and a dedication to excellence. Their promotion highlights the firm’s continued commitment to fostering professional growth and recognizes the meaningful impact they make for our clients across all practice areas. We are proud to celebrate this significant milestone and look forward to their ongoing success and contributions.