Jay A. Hamad
Areas of Practice
Jay's practice includes all manner of construction, New York Labor Law, admiralty, maritime and general liability. Jay represents construction managers, general contractors, sub-contractors and property owners in suits brought against them in construction defect claims, construction accidents, issues of code violations, and building and design-related deficiencies. As co-chair of the firm's Maritime Litigation Practice Group, Jay also defends clients in maritime law claims involving the Jones Act, Longshore and Harbor Workers Act, and complex medical malpractice matters. He has served as lead counsel in jury trials and binding arbitrations which have yielded defense verdicts and positive outcomes for his clients.
He has represented clients ranging from multinational corporations to small family owned businesses in state and federal district courts in a wide variety of marine, commercial, casualty and complex medical malpractice litigation. He has litigated a significant number of claims involving complex medical issues such as Chiari I Malformation and Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis
Jay has routinely retained highly-qualified experts in multiple disciplines in order to defend sophisticated matters on a variety of levels, thus contributing to defense verdicts and settlements far below the plaintiffs' monetary demands.
After serving as a law clerk to the Honorable Bryan D. Garruto, Jay joined the law firm of McDonough, Korn, Eichhorn, & Schorr, where he concentrated his practice on defense of physicians in professional liability matters.
Served as lead trial counsel in a medical malpractice matter in which the plaintiff alleged multiple deviations from the standard of care against a defendant surgeon. The alleged deviations included a failure to obtain and review records from an earlier procedure prior to subjecting the patient to the same surgery several years later and a failure to order the recognized standard testing (ERCP, MRCP) prior to undertaking the second procedure. Within minutes of the commencement of deliberations, the jury returned a unanimous defense verdict (8-0).
Obtained a dismissal of all claims in a premises liability matter on behalf of his client, a security firm. The plaintiff sustained significant injuries, was required to undergo multiple surgeries and was deemed permanently disabled. The plaintiff sought over $500,000 in past medical expenses and a seven-figure lost wages and future medical expenses claim. The plaintiff and the co-defendants asserted cross claims against Jay's client and undertook significant efforts to obtain contribution from his client towards settlement of the claim. During paper discovery and depositions, Jay was able to expose evidentiary lapses in the theory of liability against his client. Jay capitalized on the success in the discovery process to move for dismissal of all claims and cross claims in motions in limine based upon the multiple evidentiary lapses.
Obtained decision from Office of the Attorney General and the Board of Medical Examiners which denied a patient's request to institute disciplinary action against Jay's client, a physician and partner of a large practice group. A patient complaint was filed with the Office of the Attorney General and the Board of Medical Examiners accusing Jay's client of violations and seeking potential suspension and revocation of his medical license. Jay crafted a strategy geared towards obtaining a determination form the Board of Medical Examiners that would deny the complaint's request for the initiation of formal disciplinary action while limiting any potential damage to his client's defense in the event of subsequent civil litigation. Jay represented his client during a hearing with the Office of the Attorney General and the Board of Medical Examiners. After the hearing, the board rendered a decision denying the complaint's request to institute formal disciplinary action.
Served as lead counsel in a binding arbitration proceeding of a commercial contract litigation in which the plaintiff, a regional construction firm, alleged that our client, a manufacturer of industrial chemicals, should be liable for losses stemming from the theft of industrial equipment that was purchased from and stored by our client. While the plaintiff also sued the subsequent owner of the facility, Jay's client was the primary target of the litigation. The parties agreed to a binding arbitration. After opening statement and examination and cross examination of witnesses from the various parties, the co-defendant settled. Jay and his client refused to settle and completed the mandatory arbitration. After closing statements, the arbitrator awarded Jay's client a no cause.
Served as lead trial counsel and obtained payment for his client, small medical practice group, from a statewide property developer who refused to abide by the terms of an agreement with his client. Jay was retained to assist a small medical practice group in obtaining damages as a result of the developer's failure to comply with contractual responsibilities. After attempting to dispose of the issue amicably, Jay initiated litigation for damages as a result of breach of contract. Jay expedited the discovery process and served as lead trial counsel. At trial, Jay's client was awarded payment under the terms of the contract.
Maritime Construction Accidents – To Longshore or To Labor Law THAT is the Question, Marshall Dennehey Client Presentation, February, 2018
Battle Between State and Federal Law in Admiralty & Maritime Cases – And Impact on Marine Insurance, Marshall Dennehey Client Presentation, February, 2018
Effectively Managing Maritime Litigation Issues, Marshall Dennehey Client Presentation, February, 2018
Wrap-Up Insurance Policies, Anti-Subrogation and the Practical Applications of These Topics, Marshall Dennehey client presentation, September 13, 2017
Effectively Managing Maritime Litigation, Client Seminar, New York, NY, August 2017
Defending Construction Accidents, Client Presentation, 2015
Commercial Defense Practice in New York, New Jersey & Pennsylvania, Nationwide Insurance Company, December 5, 2014
MRSA and Hospital Infections - Plaintiff and Defense Perspectives, and Epidemiological Overview, Mealey's Litigation Conferences, March 2009
“The Witch Is Dead… For the Most Part. Punitive Damages and Maritime Claims,” Defense Digest, Vol. 25, No. 3, September 2019
Reported opinion by the New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431: United Tit. Agency, LLC v Surfside-3 Mar., Inc. 2008 NY Slip Op 52248(U) [21 Misc 3d 1127(A)]
Certified Proctor in Admiralty, 2019