Peter S. Read

With more than 20 years of litigation and trial experience, Peter has defended property owners, managers and security companies in premises liability cases involving catastrophic personal injuries, property damage and business loss. Additionally, he is experienced in the defense of cases involving wrongful death, product liability, lead-based paint exposure and appellate practice in all areas. Pete also handles litigation in cases involving elevators, escalators, moving walkways, electronic doorways, cranes and lifts.

Peter has extensive experience handling fire cases, defending property owners, public utilities, all manner of product liability defendants and construction contractors in cases involving catastrophic injuries and death allegedly as a result of products such as tools and equipment, household appliances, defective auto batteries and gas explosions leading to commercial and residential fires.

Peter has tried many cases throughout New York City as well as Nassau, Suffolk, Westchester and Duchess Counties with a remarkable rate of success including a number of defense verdicts.

Published Works

•'The Laborious Task of Litigating NY State Labor Law Claims: A Pre-Trial Defense Perspective,' New York Law Journal, Litigation Supplement, November 13, 2017

Classes/Seminars Taught

•New York State Labor Law Primer, Marshall Dennehey Client Presentation, July 29, 2025
•A.M. Best Podcast: Defending Construction Claims Under the New York Labor Law Statutes, December 2018

Results

Summary Judgment for Plumbing Contractor in Construction Defect Case

We obtained dismissal of the plaintiff’s complaint and all cross claims against our client, a commercial plumbing contractor, on a motion for summary judgment in a construction defect case. The case involved claims by a homeowners association for property damage and replacement costs allegedly in excess of $6 million as a result of construction defects in the design and installation of plumbing, water collection, drainage, grading, and other water runoff and drainage systems. In addition to our client, the named defendants were the project architects, the general contractor, various plumbing, electric, concrete and grading trades, and the water and electric utilities, all of whom asserted cross claims. We were granted summary judgment on grounds that the plaintiff’s breach of contract claim failed due to lack of privity and proof that the plaintiff was not a third-party beneficiary of our subcontract. All claims and cross claims for negligent installation/breach of warranty were dismissed upon proof that our client’s work was performed in accord with project specs and in accord with the applicable building code, and that none of its work contributed to any drainage issues or resulting property damage.

Thought Leadership

Defense Digest

On The Pulse... New York Construction and Labor Law Practice Group. Knowing the Industry From the Inside Out

January 29, 2021

Marshall Dennehey’s New York Construction and Labor Law Practice Group is comprised of a team of attorneys led by trial-tested partners, who each have decades of experience handling the most complex construction-site accident cases in the five boroughs of New York City and throughout the state. From issues involving contractual indemnification and insurance coverage, including owner-controlled and contractor-controlled wrap-up insurance programs, to the ever-evolving application of Labor Law 240, the infamous “Scaffold Law,” our attorneys remain at the forefront of this practice. We represent clients across the entire spectrum of the construction industry, from architects and engineers to public and private building owners and developers, general contractors, construction managers, environmental and site safety consultants, and all manner of subcontractor trades. Our cases arise out of all aspects of the construction industry. They include claims involving excavation, shoring, demolition, crane, and heavy machinery operation in industrial, commercial and residential projects.We bring to this practice more than just our legal expertise. Our attorneys have a variety of practical experience in and around the construction industry, such as employment in a family custom home construction company that has been in business on Long Island for the past 48 years; a former labor crew union member for a hotel construction company; employment with a developer building ski vacation homes; and even a licensed amateur radio operator with experience in the construction of antennae and other component parts. So armed, our attorneys are fully versed in the full range of construction business practices, the roles of management and field personnel, and record-keeping protocols and procedures. Our attributes yield a cost-efficient defense strategy that we are ready to implement at a moment’s notice. Our proactive and aggressive approach enables us to anticipate issues and potential problems with ready and creative solutions-whenever and wherever our clients need us. That means we are ready for immediate response to an accident scene. Since we are fully familiar with the complexity of construction sites, our experienced attorneys are ready and able to navigate sites to coordinate post-accident investigation in order to determine which trades and equipment are involved, identify and interview witnesses to the accident and individuals with knowledge relevant to the defense, and ensure the preservation of evidence. A recent case illustrates how our background and experience translates into immediate results. The case involved a worker injured on the roof of a building under construction. As soon as we received the case assignment, we responded to the scene, determined exactly where and how the accident had occurred, and what type of work was involved. Knowing exactly what we needed in terms of records, we then immediately contacted our client and obtained the relevant construction documents that established that the client did not perform the type of work that produced the injury and that they did not perform any work at the location of the accident. We sent the documents to plaintiff’s counsel with a proposed stipulation of discontinuance and advised that we were otherwise ready to file a motion to dismiss calling for sanctions. The stipulation of discontinuance, with prejudice, of the claim against our client was signed within two weeks of our request. It is this mindset and expertise that we take into every case assignment. On this point, we fully understand, and are ever mindful, that the interests of our clients and their insurers are most often best served by effectuating a swift and efficient transfer of their risk through either contractual indemnification or on the basis of additional insured status, and so each and every case is immediately analyzed for those opportunities. Our record of excellent results by way of summary judgment victories or resolutions reached through strong negotiation at mediation is second to none. Nevertheless, when the facts or circumstances of a case require it, we do not hesitate to take a case to trial. By way of recent example, we have achieved the following:We received a defense verdict after a three-week liability trial. We were facing liability under Labor Law 241(6) against our client. We obtained a verdict that assessed a significant percentage of fault on a claim for contribution against a third-party defendant that designed and manufactured a massive mechanical gantry running on a complex system of rails as part of a construction renovation project on the roof of a New York City building. We ended up saving our client over $2 million when the case resolved following the verdict.We received summary judgment for a site safety consultant on the basis of its status as an independent contractor in a case involving the operation of a crane that resulted in the plaintiff sustaining catastrophic amputation injuries.We received summary judgment for a third-party defendant employer in a case involving interrelated maritime and Labor Law construction claims at a marine construction site at the old Tappan Zee Bridge.We won summary judgment, affirmed on appeal, for an owner where the court ruled that the plaintiff’s work activity did not qualify for protection under Labor Law 240, 241(6), or 200, under the Court of Appeals four-part analysis in Soto v. J Crew.We won summary judgment for the owner and general contractor under Labor Law sections 240, 241(6), and 200, based on our argument that our client was not directing or controlling the plaintiff’s work when he was injured and that the Labor Law did not apply to the plaintiff’s fall from a truck in a parking lot adjacent to the construction site.These examples represent but a mere snapshot of the cases handled and won by our New York Construction and Labor Law Practice Group. Our superior service and record of success is rooted not only in our legal expertise but also in our deep experience and knowledge of the construction industry itself from the inside out. *Peter is a shareholder and co-chair of the firm’s New York Construction and Labor Law Practice Group. Peter works in our New York City office and can be reached at (212) 376-6445 or [email protected].

News

Keith M. Andresen Returns to Marshall Dennehey as Co-Chair of the Firm’s New York Construction & Labor Law Practice Group

July 17, 2024