Dennis J. Dozis

Dennis J. Dozis

Partner

Office: NY – New York
T: 212.434.0107 F: 212.434.0105

vCard

As appellate counsel, Dennis prosecutes and defends commercial and civil appeals in state and federal courts across the nation. He has defended Fortune 500 Companies in commercial litigation, product liability and maritime and civil disputes. He has extensive experience representing insurance companies and policyholders in issues involving coverage, indemnity and defense obligations. He also handles complex real estate, property damage and personal injury matters.  When faced with a novel area of law or the opportunity to delve into a new practice area, Dennis applies his strong writing, oral communication and analytical skills to master the issues presented and zealously represent his clients.

In addition to his expertise as an appellate litigator, Dennis maintains an active construction practice, focusing on litigation involving construction site injuries, construction machinery, construction defect and adjoining property damage claims. He also consults with and provides transactional and risk management advice to real estate developers, owners, contractors and individuals seeking to minimize exposure and engage in sound contracting, insurance and site safety practices.

Dennis served as a court attorney for the New York State Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department, where he gained extensive experience in appellate practice and intimate knowledge of multiple areas of law. As court attorney, he drafted more than 150 confidential reports for judicial review.

Practices

  • Gibbs v. St. Barnabas Hosp., 13 N.Y.3d 917, 895 N.Y.S.2d 295 (2010)
    • Reversing trial and appellate court orders and nonsuiting a plaintiff based upon his failure to comply with a conditional order of preclusion
  • Young v. Brown, 113 A.D.3d 761, 978 N.Y.S.2d 867 (2d Dept. 2014)
    • Holding that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment barred suit against a non-ordained clergy member based upon an alleged sexual relationship with a parishioner
  • 25 Ave. C New Realty, LLC v. Alea North America Ins. Co., 96 A.D.3d 489, 949 N.Y.S.2d 2 (1st Dept. 2012)
    • Holding that equitable estoppel could not create coverage where the insurance policy at issue was not in effect when the incident occurred
  • Public Adm’r Bronx County v. Montefiore Medical Center, 93 A.D.3d 620, 941 N.Y.S.2d 104 (1st Dept. 2012)
    • Holding that a forum selection clause in a hospital’s admission agreement was enforceable
  • Fernandez v. 707, Inc., 85 A.D.3d 539, 926 N.Y.S.2d 408 (1st Dept. 2011)
    • Holding that a property owner’s duty to maintain an abutting sidewalk did not extend to a tree well in a newly rebuilt sidewalk which allegedly caused a pedestrian’s injuries
  • Moran v. Mu, 74 A.D.3d 922, 902 N.Y.S.2d 657 (2d Dept. 2010)
    • Holding that a successor executor could be sued as a third-party defendant in New York, although she claimed that the estate had been closed under Colorado law
  • Downey v. Beatrice Epstein Family Partnership, LP, 48 A.D.3d 616, 853 N.Y.S.2d 108 (2d Dept. 2008)
    • Holding that a firefighter’s injuries were not caused by the defendants’ breach of its duty to maintain the premises in a safe condition
  • Rodriguez v. 1705 & 1715 Caton Associates, 39 A.D.3d 617, 833 N.Y.S.2d 24 (2d Dept. 2007)
    • Holding that an owner did not owe any duty to protect a victim from the criminal acts of a third party absent a showing that such acts were foreseeable
  • Luo v. Baldwin Union Free School Dist., 2013 WL 6726899 (2d Cir. 2013)
    • Affirming the dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims against a psychologist under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and 42 U.S.C. § 1983
  • McKnight v. Middleton, 434 Fed.Appx. 32 (2d Cir. 2011
    • Affirming the dismissal of the plaintiff’s federal and common law claims against a psychologist in a child custody proceeding based upon the doctrine of immunity
  • In Re M/V MSC Flaminia, Case No. 1:12-cv-08892 (S.D.N.Y. April 22, 2015)
    • Granting pre-answer dismissal motion for want of general jurisdiction over foreign corporate parent and reversing long-standing New York precedent in $200 million maritime action