Adam Calvert is a shareholder in the firm's Casualty Department where he represents clients in the fields of construction injury litigation, retail liability, automobile litigation, trucking and transportation litigation, product liability actions, and amusements, sports and recreation liability. His clients include retail stores, construction companies, maintenance companies, amusement parks, theaters and product retailers, among other clients.
Adam has extensive experience representing clients in labor law cases, including those involving Labor Law 240(1) claims. Many of the plaintiffs in these cases allege serious debilitating injuries that prevent them from working again and the settlement demands are often in the multi-million-dollar range. In addition to defending these claims, Adam has also successfully brought third-party actions against subcontractors to defend and indemnify his clients.
Adam also has experience defending clients against claims involving staged accidents, often linked to organized fraud rings. He works closely with the firm’s special investigations unit (SIU) and industry experts to uncover patterns of fraud, challenge questionable claims, and mitigate risk for clients. Adam also represents a variety of automobile clients. He has handled numerous commercial and personal trucking and vehicle accidents from investigation through trial. In addition to representing these automobile clients, he has also represented rideshare companies, obtaining some of the first summary judgment decisions in their favor in New York.
Adam also handles a large amount of retail and premises liability cases. These cases involve everything from slip and falls to design and construction defects to assaults and inadequate security claims. He regularly works with experts and investigators to present the best defense for his client, but in doing so, he always takes a practical approach to the litigation by not needlessly retaining these experts and always does so with a purpose.
Since joining the firm, Adam has handled many high-exposure cases where the plaintiff's alleged damages have the potential for a seven-figure recovery. For example, he has handled multi-fatality automobile accidents, construction site falls and traumatic product liability injuries. In these, and in all of his cases, he conducted site inspections and investigations, conducted all parts of discovery, drafted and argued summary judgment motions, and successfully settled cases at mediation. Throughout his cases, Adam always works closely with his clients to guide their cases to a successful resolution. He also prides himself on maintaining good relationships with opposing counsel to avoid needless disputes that waste time and money and do nothing to resolve the case.
Prior to joining Marshall Dennehey, Adam worked at a New York City law firm where he represented one of the country's largest construction management companies and the area's largest cable television company.
Adam is a graduate of Fordham University School of Law where he was a competitor on the Moot Court Team, the chairman of the Unemployment Action Committee, and a member of the International Law Journal and Federal Litigation Clinic. He received a Bachelor of Arts from the University of Maryland-College Park.
Results
Summary Judgment Obtained in New York Ridesharing Case
We won summary judgment for an online car sharing platform that connects vehicle owners (hosts) with travelers and locals (guests) seeking to book those vehicles for a fee in New York. The plaintiff alleged that he sustained serious injuries when he was involved in an automobile accident that collided with a vehicle listed on our client’s website. The Bronx County Supreme Court granted summary judgment in favor of our client, ruling that the defendant demonstrated that it is a peer-to-peer car sharing service; it does not provide rental services; it does not own, maintain or repair any of the vehicles on its platform; it is not responsible for the acts and omissions of the hosts or guests; and there is no agency relationship between defendant and the hosts or guests.
Summary Judgment Secured in New York Motor Vehicle Accident Case
We obtained summary judgment after oral argument with Judge Anne Swern in Kings County Supreme Court in New York. This case involved a motor vehicle accident where the plaintiff was a backseat passenger in an Uber that rear-ended a vehicle owned and operated by our clients. We established that our clients were stopped for 10-15 seconds at a light when they were rear-ended by the Uber driver, who was precluded and could not submit any testimony in this matter. Further, by establishing that the plaintiff was asleep at the time, she could not offer any evidence of how the accident happened.
Thought Leadership
New York Law Journal
New York Appellate Court Clears Path for Disclosure of Third‑Party Litigation Funding in Personal Injury Lawsuits
January 7, 2026
For the first time, a New York appellate court has held that the defendants in a personal injury lawsuit are entitled to third-party litigation funding discovery. In Lituma v. Liberty Coca-Cola Beverages LLC, 243 AD3d 504 (1st Dept. 2025), the Appellate Division, First Department, established critical legal precedent in allowing this discovery that the defense bar has been seeking for years.
Case Law Alerts
New York First Department Issues First Decision Addressing Litigation Funding Agreements
January 1, 2026
In a ruling that establishes critical legal precedent, appellate attorney Diane Toner, Special Counsel in our New York City office, obtained the first-ever appellate decision granting the discovery of third-party litigation funding material in New York, which had previously been protected from discovery for public policy reasons. Lituma involved a personal injury claim stemming from a motor vehicle accident. The defendants, Liberty Coca-Cola Beverages, LLC, argued that the accident was staged, alleging that the plaintiff deliberately sped up, cut in front of them and then slammed on the brakes to cause a collision. The defendants argued for various discovery related to the fraud. With respect to the specific issue of the discovery of litigation funding material, the appellate court held that the defendants established that the information sought is “material and necessary” as it could reveal a financial motive for fabricating the accident. In addition to establishing legal precedent for the discovery of third-party litigation funding, the Lituma decision sets forth a standard for maintaining a counterclaim for fraud, by citing to the insurance agent’s detailed chronology and specific evidence of connections to other suspicious individuals. In contrast, in Linares v. City of New York, 233 A.D.3d 479 (1st Dept. 2024), the appellate court dismissed a counterclaim for fraud where the defendants relied solely on “unproven allegations of fraud” in their RICO complaint.
