Steven A. Torrini
Steven A. Torrini‘s expertise covers many areas of civil litigation, including catastrophic accidents, construction accidents, construction defects, property damage, products liability, environmental exposures, environmental contamination, toxic torts, and fire loss. He has extensive experience with cases involving traumatic brain injury as well as chemical, lead paint, mold and asbestos exposures. In addition, Mr. Torrini regularly handles matters involving the New York Labor Law, including alleged violations of Sections 240(1) and 241(6); and generally handles the firms highest exposure personal injury actions.
Additionally, Mr. Torrini has significant experience representing insurers in first-party property coverage disputes concerning commercial and residential losses; insurance fraud; environmental losses; commercial construction losses; construction defects; and torts involving commercial property. Mr. Torrini regularly defends the firm’s insurance clients in these matters and advises those clients regarding contract formation, contract interpretation, and strategy.
Mr. Torrini also has represented owners, contractors, subcontractors and sureties in construction disputes involving claims for delay, poor workmanship, design errors, liquidated damages, mechanics’ liens, change orders, lost productivity, performance bond claims, payment bond claims and indemnity claims. Mr. Torrini also has handled a wide array of commercial disputes, including the dissolution of partnerships, breach of fiduciary duty actions, fraud claims and regulatory enforcement proceedings involving for profit and not for profit entities.
Mr. Torrini has handled matters throughout the United States and has acted as counsel for real estate owners, construction managers, general contractors, subcontractors, architects, and engineers with respect to large scale construction projects.
Mr. Torrini has direct involvement in mediations, hearings, trials, and appeals.
After receiving his law degree in 2000, Mr. Torrini clerked for the Honorable Patrick F.X. Fitzpatrick, J.S.C., during the 2000–2001 term and also worked at two well-known law firms prior to joining the firm in 2005.
Mr. Torrini is on the faculty of the Practising Law Institute (PLI) and has spoken on New Jersey Civil Trial Practice. He also spoke on New Jersey Civil Trial Practice for the New York City Bar Association 16 Hour-Bridge-the-Gap on April 18, 2018.
- New York State Bar Association
Toxic Tort Litigation
Gushue v. Estate of Norman Levy, 118 A.D.3d 415, 986 N.Y.S.2d 478 (2d Dept. 2014) (Obtained summary judgment on behalf of owner and managing agent of multi-story commercial building in Lower Manhattan. Plaintiff contended she developed Parkinson’s Disease due to exposure to manganese fumes emanating from nearby tenant’s pottery business. New York County Supreme Court dismissed case on summary judgment because plaintiff failed to show that exposure to manganese fumes is a generally-accepted cause of Parkinson’s Disease. Decision was upheld by Second Department.)
Diaz v. Morey Larue et al, Docket No. ESX-L-8705-09 (N.J. Law Div. Mar. 2, 2012) (Obtained summary judgment on statute of limitations grounds, i.e., inapplicability of fictitious defendant and discovery rules, on behalf of client who was a landlord and former commercial laundry operator in double wrongful death case arising out of workplace chemical inhalation incident.)
Construction Accident Litigation/New York Labor Law
Lapinski et. al. v. Tully Environmental Inc. et. al., Index No. 701408/2013 (Sup. Ct. Queens Cty., Aug. 27, 2013) (Obtained summary judgment on behalf of major construction company dismissing Labor Law 240(1) and 241(6) claims because Plaintiff was not involved in construction work on the date of incident, nor was he injured on a construction site.)
Travelers Prop. & Cas. Ins. a/s/o Loehmann’s Inc. v. AAG Creperie d/b/a XO Creperie, et. al., Case No. 11CV2066 (E.D.N.Y. 2014) (Obtained summary judgment in favor of sprinkler contractor on basis that contractor did not owe duty of care to third-party tenants of commercial premises. Contractor’s agreement with owner of premises was limited to monthly inspections of sprinkler system, but did not involve testing or maintenance. Eastern District of New York held that none of the special circumstances justifying the imposition of tort duty of care applied. The Court also entered an order of contractual indemnification in favor of the sprinkler contractor and against owner directing owner to reimburse contractor its reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred in defending the action.)
Silver v. Trumbull Equities, LLC, et. al., Case No. 21300/2009 (Sup. Ct. Queens Cty. July 10, 2014) (Obtained summary judgment on behalf of sprinkler contractor by demonstrating showing that injuries to sustained by Plaintiffs while extinguishing fire were the result of intervening causes unrelated to any alleged negligence on the part of contractor.)
General Premises Liability
Dougherty v. Panera LLC et. al., Index No. 6122/2013 (Sup. Ct. Nassau Cty., May 28, 2015) (Obtained summary judgment in favor of major construction company dismissing Complaint of injured Plaintiff as Plaintiff was unable to show that contractor owed her a duty of care to protect her from alleged defect.)
Blech v. West Park Presbyterian Church, et. al., 97 A.D.3d 443, 948 N.Y.S.2d 273 (1st Dept. 2012) (First Department reversed lower court and held that client, major construction contractor, was entitled to summary judgment where contractor provided only pre-construction activities, such as planning and estimating, in connection with anticipated demolition of a premises, but had not performed any physical work prior to the Plaintiff’s on the premises.)
Treglia v. Lower Manhattan Development Corp., Index No. 116535/2010 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. May 22, 2012) (Obtained summary judgment on behalf of LMDC where Plaintiff failed to serve timely notice of claim pursuant to the New York State Urban Development Act §31; and where claim was barred by the one-year and 90-day statute of limitations period applicable to tort actions against LMDC.)
Tamara v. Dolton Associates, LLC et. al., Index No. 959/2007 (Sup. Ct. Queens Cty. Feb. 23, 2009) (Obtained summary judgment for out-of-possession landowner who exercised no supervision, direction or control over premises. The Queens County Supreme Court also entered an order enforcing landowner’s cross-claim for contractual indemnification against tenant and directed tenant to reimburse landowner its reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.)
Piazza et. al. v. River Place I, LLC et. al., Index No. 108378/2004 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty., March 23, 2006) (Obtained summary judgment for sports club where Plaintiff, who claimed a defect in a tennis court, was unable to introduce evidence of an actionable defect or that client created it or had notice of the alleged defect.)
Falcone v. Grou Development, et. al., Index No. 13657/2002 (Sup. Ct. Rich. Cty., March 11, 2006) (Obtained summary judgment for owner of theater who leased it to co-defendant where fight broke out and injured the Plaintiff. The Richmond County Supreme Court also entered an order directing co-defendant to reimburse owner its reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred in defending the action as set forth in the lease.)
Rangoli, Inc., et al. v. Tower Ins. Co., 71 A.D.3d 753, 894 N.Y.S.2d 919 (2d Dept. 2010) (Several commercial properties suffered damage from a landslide. Insurer granted summary judgment, affirmed on appeal, based on the insured’s failure to provide prompt notice of its claim and insured failed to prove that the loss.)
Pine Belt Automotive, Inc. v. Royal Indemnity Co., et. al.,Case No. 06CV5995 (D.N.J. Oct. 21, 2008) (insurer’s summary judgment motion granted where New Jersey District Court held that conversion of money orders by an employee of an automobile dealership, which was part of an embezzlement scheme, constituted a single occurrence. In addition, the Court found that there was no coverage for loss sustained by dealership due to the submission of false credit reports by the employee to dealership’s lender as said conduct did not constitute theft under the policy. This decision was upheld by the Third Circuit.)
- With Lloyd Gura, Mr. Torrini gave a virtual client presentation to a major reinsurer on New York Labor Law sections 200, 240(1) and 241(6). Approximately 200 claims, underwriting, and senior management personnel attended. The presentation focused on the application of the statutes to personal injury claims throughout New York City and other parts of New York State. In addition, they covered the nuances of handling such claims, both from a claims and a litigation standpoint, including an analysis of factors upon which to focus in order to set a reserve, the economic and non-economic exposure presented by these claims, recent jury verdicts and settlements, and a discussion of the contractual indemnification and insurance coverage issues which arise between owners, general contractors, and subcontractors. March 26, 2021
Speaker, 16 Hour-Bridge-the-Gap, New Jersey Civil Trial Practice, New York City Bar Association, April 18, 2018
New York, 2002
New Jersey, 2001
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
J.D., Seton Hall University School of Law, 2000
B.S., Rutgers University School of Business, 1995