Christopher L. Parisi, a Partner in our New York Labor Law construction practice, won summary judgment in the case Howard Ashman v. New York Convention Center Development Corporation d/b/a Jacob K. Javits Center, et al. (Supreme Court, Queens County). The Order dismissed the plaintiff’s claims against our clients, including common law negligence and claims pursuant to New York Labor Law Sections 200, 240(1), and 241(6). The dismissal was obtained prior to depositions and before significant discovery proceedings took place. In this case, the plaintiff alleges that he was injured in 2019 while working for a concrete subcontractor on the expansion project of the Jacob Javits Convention Center in Manhattan.
Our clients are a holding company and its subsidiary telecommunications installation company. In 2014, the telecommunications company had proposed an internet cabinet installation project at the Jacob Javits Center, which had not gone forward. This proposed project was not part of the Jacob Javits Center expansion project, which started years later.
When the telecommunications subsidiary was acquired by the holding company in 2017, a document was filed on ACRIS, New York City’s real estate records database, which recorded the transfer of non-possessory telecommunications utility easements from the subsidiary to the parent company. The Jacob Javits address had been listed in the utility easement transfer document, along with over two hundred-seventy other addresses.
In support of our Motion, we submitted a detailed client Affidavit that explained the meaning and purpose of the ACRIS document and established that our clients did not have an ownership interest in the project, or any control or involvement with the construction activities. In opposition to our Motion for Summary Judgment, plaintiff’s counsel argued that the Affidavit was defective and that the ACRIS document established our clients’ ownership interest or control over the property and expansion project. The Honorable Justice Frederick D.R. Sampson decided that our Motion and the Affidavit demonstrated that our clients “did not own the property, control, or supervise any of the work being performed, nor had Defendants performed any construction work at the premises.” In granting summary judgment, the Court held, “…it appears that moving Defendants were named herein due to a recorded non-possessory utility easement, which does not confer an ownership interest.”
Once Upon a Passenger Liner
A cruise ship by any other name is a passenger liner. But not vice versa. Ocean liners were designed to transport passengers and deliver mail from one country to another. They were simply a mode of transportation, such as the TITANIC’s ‘unthinkable’ voyage from the United Kingdom to the United States in 1912.
Travel by sea came long before air travel. However, the period from 1950 to 1970 brought a dramatic decline in transatlantic passenger traffic by sea and a sharp rise in air travel with the introduction of commercial jet aircrafts.
Passenger liners have been replaced by floating hotels that cater to vacationers. Now, the echo of ‘Welcome Aboard’ is for those not looking for transportation but rather treating every day as a ‘Sun Day’–the motto proudly posted aboard Virgin Atlantic’s newest ship, MV BRILLIANT LADY in New York recently on its Maiden Voyage.
The name ‘cruise ship’ now implies its mission: cruising, gambling, shopping, swimming, dancing and dining. What was once just transportation has evolved to be just entertainment. There are even water parks, climbing walls, spas, and private islands. And, with that comes the associated risks and liabilities under maritime law.
Cruising for a Bruising
A hairdresser was injured aboard the SS INDEPENDENCE on a voyage to the Mediterranean falling and bruising her face and lower back. The hairdresser sued the shipowner and her employer, House of Albert, who had the concession to staff and operate the barber and beauty salons on board three large passenger liners.
The Second Circuit determined that the hairdresser could maintain an action against the shipowner for unseaworthiness and general negligence, reasoning that the duty to provide a seaworthy ship extends not only to the vessel owner’s employees but to all “who perform the ship’s service…with his consent or by his arrangement”. Mahramas v. American Export Isbrandtsen Lines, Inc., 475 F.2d 165 (2d Cir. 1973) quoting Seas Shipping Co. v. Sieracki, 328 U.S. 85,95 (1946).
Although Mahramas was not performing any of the historic functions of a ship’s crew, because she was required to have seaman’s papers, signed articles, and was performing a service upon the ship, she was found to have seaman status.
As a result, she could also maintain a cause of action for negligence as well as maintenance and cure against her employer under the Jones Act. Mahramas at 170.
Admiralty to Aviation?
Now that air travel has taken over the same routes traditionally done by ships, lawyers have cleverly argued that federal admiralty jurisdiction should apply to the airborne travel that was once a ‘traditional maritime’ activity.
The application of maritime law could be particularly relevant to issues such as damages in death and injury cases.
In a most interesting 1972 air crash into navigable waters case, Executive Jet Aviation v. City of Cleveland, the Supreme Court was compelled to revisit its test for federal admiralty jurisdiction which at the time was based strictly on the ‘locality’ of the loss; to wit, if the incident occurred on ‘navigable waters’, it was subject to federal admiralty jurisdiction.
In Executive Jet, the aircraft crashed into navigable waters of Lake Erie after it struck a flock of seagulls on takeoff from Cleveland enroute to Portland, Maine. A jurisdiction battle ensued with petitioners looking to invoke federal admiralty jurisdiction and maritime law concepts.
Petitioners argued that when an aircraft crashes into navigable waters, the dangers to persons and property are much the same as those arising out of the sinking of a ship or a collision between two vessels. 409 U.S. 249, 269.
The Executive Jet flight would have been almost entirely over land and within the continental United States.
Thus, the court denied admiralty jurisdiction finding no ‘significant relationship’ to traditional maritime activities such as navigation and commerce on navigable waters by a flight falling from one point in the continental United States to another. 409 U.S. 249, 272.
However, the court did acknowledge that if a plane flying from New York to London crashed in the mid-Atlantic, there could be admiralty jurisdiction over resulting tort claims.
As stated by the court, an aircraft in that transoceanic situation “might be thought to bear a significant relationship to traditional maritime activity because it would be performing a function traditionally performed by waterborne vessels” such as passenger liner transportation. 409 U.S. 271.
To avoid inconsistent results based on the ‘locality’ test alone, the Supreme Court expanded the test for admiralty jurisdiction. It determined that for admiralty tort jurisdiction to apply, more than just ‘locality’ on navigable waters was necessary, stating that it is ‘far more consistent with the history and purpose of admiralty to require that the wrong bear a significant relationship to traditional maritime activity’. 409 U.S. 249, 268.
The Scrappy SS UNITED STATES
The majestic passenger liners of the past are nearly extinct—a forgotten era of glory and romance of ships like the SS UNITED STATES, SS INDEPENDENCE, RMS QUEEN MARY, RMS MAURETANIA and RMS TITANIC. In America, the grandest of all was the SS UNITED STATES.
The ship made dozens of transoceanic voyages. Launched in 1951, it was and remains the largest ocean liner ever built in the United States (in Newport News, VA). Delivered to New York in June, 1952, on its maiden voyage, the ship shattered the Atlantic Ocean speed record, crossing in three days and ten hours.
Its longest serving and highest ranking Master (1953-1964) was Commodore John Anderson, the father of one of New York’s preeminent admiralty lawyers, Charles Anderson.
Sadly, the aged ship has been marked to be sunk to become the world’s largest artificial reef while its appurtenances to be set aside for a land-based museum. On Aug. 27, 2024, Okaloosa County of Florida took possession of the vessel and moved the ship to Mobile, Alabama to prepare for its eventual sinking as an artificial reef off the shores of Okaloosa County, Florida.
But, like Rocky, this ship wouldn’t go down without a fight. The ship with nine lives was recently in litigation in a last-ditch effort to save her from the marine equivalent of a knockout and to be fully restored to glory.
In March 2025, a not-for-profit corporation, the “New York Coalition to Save the Steam Ship United States” commenced suit against Okaloosa County, Florida in the Northern District of Florida in an effort to save the ship from being cut up, sunk and becoming an artificial reef off the coast of Florida. 3:25-CV-212, ECF No. 28, at *1.
The lawsuit, like the ship itself, was big and bold. The NY Coalition had even sent a letter to President Trump requesting an executive order for the U.S. government to take ownership of the ship to prevent scrapping. But the Coalition was soundly defeated.
The suit was dismissed without prejudice on Aug. 6, 2025, by Judge M. Casey Rodgers in a 12-page decision holding that the NY Coalition lacked standing. The court noted that “[t]he NY Coalition lays claim only to a widely shared interest in historic preservation, which is not a legally protected interest.” The Coalition recently threw in the towel agreeing on Aug. 16, 2025 to a voluntary dismissal with prejudice. 3:25-CV-212, ECF No. 30.
Passenger liners designed for transportation alone is a concept of the past, but cruise lines, where every day is a Sun Day, continue to thrive and provide seafaring enjoyment. Had the SS UNITED STATES survived its challenge in admiralty court, it ‘coulda been a contenda’ in New York as a tourist attraction, cultural facility, or industrial/residential complex. Instead, it will now swim with the fishes. RIP.
JAMES E. MERCANTE is a partner at Gallo Vitucci Klar and president of the Board of Commissioners of Pilots of the state of New York. JOANNA M. GRILLO, maritime associate at Gallo Vitucci Klar, assisted in the preparation of this article.
Over the weekend, Team GVK once again participated in the annual Tunnel to Towers 5K Run & Walk!
Held each year on the last Sunday of September, the Tunnel to Towers 5K retraces the heroic journey of FDNY Firefighter Stephen Siller, who, on September 11, 2001, raced toward danger rather than away from it. After learning of the attacks while off duty, Siller strapped on 60 pounds of firefighting gear and ran on foot through the closed Brooklyn Battery Tunnel toward the Twin Towers. His bravery, along with that of the 343 FDNY firefighters, law enforcement officers, and thousands of civilians who lost their lives that day, is honored through this powerful event.
Team GVK was proud to lace up once again in Stephen’s memory and in support of the Tunnel to Towers Foundation’s mission to provide mortgage-free homes to Gold Star families, fallen first responder families, and catastrophically injured veterans.
We are still actively fundraising on behalf of Team GVK and welcome continued donations from anyone who would like to support this incredible cause. If you would like to support, please donate here. Thank you!
Thank you to everyone who participated, supported, and cheered us on, we look forward to running again next year!
Gallo Vitucci Klar LLP is proud to announce that Partner Bryan Schwartz has been named to Attorney Intel’s list of the Top 25 Transportation Attorneys of 2025. This prestigious recognition honors attorneys who demonstrate exceptional skill and leadership in navigating the complex legal challenges within the transportation industry.
With more than two decades of experience, Bryan focuses his practice on defending transportation-related matters involving motor carriers, construction vehicles, municipal and school buses, emergency and para-transit fleets, and other commercial trucks. He currently co-chairs GVK’s rapid response team and manages three national rapid response programs, overseeing 24/7 emergency investigations for serious trucking accidents across the United States. Bryan also directs local counsel throughout the full lifecycle of high-exposure litigation, including wrongful death claims.
His leadership in the transportation defense space has earned him national recognition, including his prior service as chairman of the Canadian Relations Subcommittee for the Trucking Industry Defense Association (TIDA). Bryan continues to be a sought-after speaker on trucking defense and rapid response strategies.
This acknowledgment underscores Bryan’s expertise and commitment to guiding transportation clients through some of their most complex and high-stakes challenges. We congratulate him on this outstanding achievement.
Read the Attorney Intel article here
We are proud to share that James E. Mercante has been recognized by his peers in the 2026 edition of The Best Lawyers in America for his outstanding work in Admiralty and Maritime Law.
For more than 40 years, Best Lawyers has been regarded as the most credible measure of legal integrity and professional distinction. Inclusion is based on a rigorous peer-review process, reflecting the respect and recognition of fellow attorneys in the field.
As a Best Lawyers honoree, Mr. Mercante joins an esteemed group of practitioners who exemplify the highest standards of the profession. His recognition further underscores our firm’s commitment to providing exceptional counsel and advocacy in the maritime arena.
We extend our congratulations to James on this well-deserved honor.
Plaintiff, who was 56 years-of-age at the time of the accident, alleged to have sustained a significant low back injury when his vehicle came into contact with our client’s tractor-trailer. As a result, plaintiff underwent multiple low back surgeries, leaving him unable to work and in need of a walking device.
With coverage well into the millions of dollars, this claim posed a significant risk for our clients. In an effort to mitigate that risk, the parties mediated. However, mediation proved unsuccessful, necessitating our motion for summary judgment. Through the motion, we sought dismissal under New York’s Insurance Law § 5102(d). Using carefully secured deposition testimony, medical records and expert affidavits, we are argued plaintiff’s debilitating injuries were not caused by the accident and therefore, were not “serious injuries” within the meaning of the statute.
In opposition, plaintiff submitted multiple affidavits. In our reply, we highlighted numerous flaws in the affidavits, arguing the evidence upon which plaintiff opposed the motion was legally inadequate to overcome our prima facie entitlement to dismissal. The Court obviously found our position availing and dismissed plaintiff’s claim.
Although largely academic, as part of this motion, we also successfully obtained dismissal on behalf of truck’s owner pursuant to the Grave’s Amendment. This decision then led to the Court changing the venue of the case from Kings County to Sullivan County, which was another application made within the motion.
Congratulations to Martin Rowe on securing a unanimous defense verdict in a personal injury case tried before the Hon. Francis Ricigliano in Nassau County Supreme Court.
A jury was selected on July 21st, and the case was tried before the Hon. Francis Ricigliano, commencing on July 28th and concluding with a defense verdict on July 30th.
The plaintiff was a member of a Masons Lodge that was undergoing some renovations. Our client owned a landscaping dump truck. At the request of his son-in-law, also a member of the Masons Lodge, our client lent the truck to the Lodge for debris removal. He drove the truck to the Lodge, parked it, and returned home. The Masons had previously used the truck under the same arrangement.
The plaintiff, an electrician by trade, was one of the volunteers at the Lodge that morning. He testified that he was attempting to lower the rear tailgate of the dump truck, which weighs 400–500 pounds, when it detached completely, causing it to fall on him and crush his left hand. The plaintiff alleged that we provided the truck in an unsafe condition and that our client had a duty to remain behind to ensure that those using the truck knew how to operate it.
The plaintiff testified that he had only removed 2 of the four pins holding the gate and “does not remember” if the safety chains were present. Two fellow Masons were called as witnesses, but both gave differing accounts of how the accident happened, also not remembering if the safety chains were present.
The defendant testified that he delivered the truck as he had done before, without incident. All the pins and chains were in place when he left the truck. He stated that he lived one mile from the hall and would have returned to instruct anyone who asked.
The defense called Kevin Tully, B.E. in Mechanical Engineering. Mr. Tully testified that he had inspected the truck and used his photos to explain to the jury the proper functioning of the gate and its components. He testified that the door could only have fallen off if all four pins and both safety chains were removed. If the plaintiff had only removed the top pins, as he claimed, the door would not have fallen off. Mr. Tully also testified that the truck could not have been driven to the hall with the pins and chains already removed, as the gate would have fallen off during transport.
The jury initially asked for the photographs. Shortly thereafter, they delivered a unanimous verdict in favor of the defense.
A jury was selected in this matter on July 1st-3rd and tried before the Hon. Peter Sweeney commencing on July 9th and concluding with a damage’s verdict on July 24th.
The plaintiff, Marcus Santiago, a window installer, was injured in the course of his employment when he slipped on algae covered exterior stairs on the property owned by our client 90 Eighth Ave Housing Corp. Plaintiff’s employer, Windows We Are successfully moved to dismiss our clients third party action as the contract lacked indemnity and/or additional insured provisions. The case was originally pled as a structural defect case (the steps were in poor condition) but for some reason plaintiff testified at his deposition that he slipped on algae and the pleadings were never amended.
Liability was tried on July 9th -11th. Prior to summations, the LL 240(1) and 241(6) causes of actions were dismissed. The LL 200 charge was incorporated into the general negligence charge. The judge also granted our application to dismiss the actual notice claim and reserved decision on the constructive notice claim letting it go to the jury. The jury returned a 100% adverse verdict finding constructive notice. I renewed my motion for a directed verdict arguing a lack of evidence. The Judge continued to reserve, directing me to file a post-trial motion on the issue.
A damages trial proceeded on July 14th and was finished on July 18th. Summations and charge proceeded on July 23rd. The jury deliberated for 2 days.
The plaintiff sustained a herniation at L5-S1. Lattuga performed a discectomy and fusion surgery and following a failed surgery Lattuga recommended and adjacent segment surgery at L4-5. Dr. Merola provided a second opinion that adjacent segment surgery was necessary. Plaintiff did not have the second surgery but testified at trial he is going to have it.
Plaintiff also treated for torn lateral ligaments in his ankle. Touliopoulos performed a reconstructive surgery. Following little improvement, a second surgery was suggested. Again, he didn’t have the surgery but testified he is going to have it.
Plaintiff raised his demand to 6.1 million following a $300,000 offer. A high low of $750,000-$2,500,000 was also rejected. Counsel was not interested in negotiating following the liability verdict.
The plaintiff’s economist projected future medical based on an Life Care Plan (LCP) prepared by Carfi as well as lost wages. $2,942,890.00 for future medications and $3,331,107.00 future lost earnings were “black boarded” by the plaintiff’s attorney.
Our experts Dr. Kim (spinal surgeon), Dr. Weinfeld (orthopedic), Dr. Canter (LCP) and Mark Ramnauth (vocational rehabilitation), were very credible witnesses (later confirmed by the jury). During closing, I suggested various amounts totaling close to $600,000.
Plaintiff’s attorney asked for $2,000,000 past pain and suffering and $3,000,000 future pain and suffering. She also requested the amounts “black boarded” by the plaintiff’s attorney for a total of $11,273,997.00
The jury returned a damages verdict awarding nothing for past and future damages; $200,000 for past lost earnings and $125,000 for future lost earnings; $150,000 for past medications and $15,000 for future medications. Total damages are $490,000.00. There was also a $750,000 settlement offer on the table, in addition to a high-low agreement that was discussed but not accepted.
Joseph Rava, Co-Chair of our New York Labor law practice, in Garnett Waite v. County of Westchester (S. Ct Westchester County) defeated plaintiff’s summary judgment motion on his Labor Law Sections 240(1) and 241(6) claims and won summary judgment on plaintiff’s negligence, Labor Law Sections 200, 241(6), and 240 claims in a case involving a worker who claims he fell into a trench while guiding a septic tank into the trench. The plaintiff alleges he was injured, while working at ground level and assisting with the placement of a septic tank into an excavation at the project. While he was holding one of six taglines attached to the concrete tank that was being lowered into an excavated pit, plaintiff slipped on soil and slid into the excavation. On behalf of our client we argued, with the support of a client affidavit and an expert affidavit, that plaintiff was exposed to usual and ordinary dangers of a construction site, was not subjected to a gravity related risk covered by Labor Law 240(1), could not establish violations of any Industrial Code rules as a predicate necessary to trigger Labor Law Section 241(6) liability and could not establish that the defendants were negligent or violated Labor Law Section 200. The court agreed with our arguments and supporting case law and found that the plaintiff was subject to the usual and ordinary dangers of a construction site and Labor Law Section 240 did not apply. The court, in finding that Labor Law Section 241(6) and Industrial Code Rule 23-1.7 (d)(1) “Slipping hazards” were not violated, agreed with our argument that plaintiff did not fall into a “hazardous opening” as contemplated by the regulation and that Industrial Code Rule 23-1.7(b) does not apply to these facts. On the Labor Law Section 200 and common law negligence claims, the court found that the defendant established through the client’s affidavit that the defendant did not observe any unsafe conditions on the site before the date of the occurrence and did not direct or control the work of the plaintiff.
This dramatic new video animates and narrates the events leading up to the container ship DALI’s crash, which caused the collapse of the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Maryland; one of the largest casualties in maritime history. GVK partner James Mercante is featured as a maritime expert.
