andrew.pinon@wilsonelser.com

Download my vCard

Download my Bio

Andrew J. Piñon concentrates his practice on the defense of hospitals, physicians, physician assistants and other allied health professionals in medical malpractice actions. As a litigator he is experienced in all phases of litigation with some of the most complex and catastrophic cases, including obstetrical, oncological, brain injury and surgical cases. Andrew’s practice also encompasses the defense of long-term care facilities and nursing homes in connection with allegations of negligence as well as other causes of action arising from state and federal regulations.

With a keen eye for detail and thorough investigative work, Andrew has arrived at successful outcomes, including granted summary judgment motions and other dispositive motion practice. Andrew was one of 20 nominated finalists who successfully completed Wilson Elser’s rigorous Mock Trial Invitational through which our most successful trial lawyers impart their knowledge to those destined to join their ranks.

 Prior to joining the firm, Andrew handled a variety of other tort litigation, including vaccine injury, labor law, products liability and general liability claims in New York and New Jersey. While in law school, he was a student attorney in the Vaccine Injury Litigation Clinic. In this capacity, he represented children and adults seeking compensation for vaccine-related injuries before the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, including cases involving severe mental and physical disabilities and complex immunological issues.

    Education

    • The George Washington University Law School (J.D., 2014)
    • Cornell University (, 2011)

    Bar Admissions

    • New York
    • New Jersey

    Court Admissions

    • U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York
    • U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York
    • U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey

Andrew J. Pinon

Karp and Piñon Score Medical Malpractice Dismissal in Protracted High-Stakes Case

Paul Karp (Partner-New York, NY) and Andrew J. Piñon (Associate- New York, NY) secured the striking of the plaintiff's complaint and a complete dismissal of a catastrophic birth injury case pending in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Kings County. On July 16, 2026, the court adhered to its dismissal on plaintiff's motion to reargue, bringing a decisive end to this long-running matter and terminating the action against every named defendant, including the delivering OB/GYN and the hospital.

In this high-stakes case, the plaintiff alleged that the defendants negligently managed her labor and delivery, resulting in her infant daughter sustaining an acute ischemic cerebral injury. The defense team assessed potential exposure in the mid- to high-seven-figure range.

This dismissal was years in the making. After the plaintiff repeatedly ignored court-ordered discovery, the defense secured a 2025 preclusion order barring her from offering any evidence, testifying at trial, or submitting an affidavit on the issue of liability, pursuant to CPLR § 3126(2). When the plaintiff's defaults continued, the team pressed forward. In March 2026, the court issued an interim order setting forth, in explicit detail, the outstanding discovery the plaintiff was required to produce by a specified date and directing the parties to submit correspondence to the court thereafter indicating whether that discovery was provided. Critically, the court expressly found that the plaintiff's “willful and contumacious non-compliance is inferred by plaintiff's repeated failure to comply with discovery and motion orders,” cataloging violations of six different discovery orders.

Paul and Andrew then made that record decisive by timely submitting a detailed letter documenting that the plaintiff had either failed to provide the court-ordered discovery or, where production was made, that it remained materially deficient. In contrast, the plaintiff failed to submit any documentation demonstrating compliance or responding to Wilson Elser’s submission. The court found that the plaintiff's sustained pattern of noncompliance, together with the meticulously documented discovery deficiencies identified by Paul and Andrew, warranted dismissal. It therefore granted Wilson Elser’s cross-motion, struck the complaint, and dismissed the action in April 2026, with judgment entered thereafter.

The plaintiff moved to reargue under CPLR § 2221(d) (the tenth motion filed in this case), contending that the court had overlooked her purported compliance. Paul and Andrew opposed, demonstrating that the dismissal rested on multiple independent grounds: the plaintiff’s repeated failure to comply with court orders; reliance on Wilson Elser’s April 2026 letter documenting the deficient production; and the interim court order express finding of willful and contumacious non-compliance. In July 2026, the court denied reargument and adhered to its dismissal, confirming that a thoroughly documented CPLR § 3126 record can withstand even a determined challenge.

This outcome is a testament to the thoroughness and persistence of the Wilson Elser defense team and underscores the importance of methodically documenting discovery deficiencies and creating a robust record in motion papers, which can secure dismissal even in a plaintiff-friendly venue.

Paul Karp and Andrew J. Pinon