Ben Greenfield is an experienced civil litigator specializing in premises liability and construction defense. He handles high-exposure cases in Pennsylvania and New York federal and state courts, from investigation and risk analysis through trial and appeals. Ben has significant appellate experience, regularly arguing before New York appellate divisions and achieving favorable outcomes, including some notable precedent-setting decisions. He also has achieved consistently excellent results as part of an accomplished trial team.

Ben defends prominent, well-known real estate investment trusts, sports venues, arenas, casinos, hotels, and medical facilities. He serves as lead oversight counsel for a high volume of general liability matters in Pennsylvania for the national casualty program of a leading global property and casualty insurer. His experience allows him to quickly identify potential issues, provide clients with case road maps, and offer crucial insights on coverage and risk transfer, consistently achieving early risk transfer. Ben works closely with clients to understand their operational needs and business interests to tailor case strategies accordingly.

Clients routinely consult Ben pre-litigation for investigation management and exposure mitigation, and for risk management advice to prevent litigation. He is mindful of clients' economic pressures and committed to efficient resolutions. Whether early settlement or trial is in the client's best interest, Ben is equipped to handle all aspects of litigation from start to finish.

    Education

    • Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, Yeshiva University (J.D., 2011)
    • Yeshiva University (B.A., magna cum laude, 2008)

    Bar Admissions

    • New York
    • Pennsylvania

    Awards & Honors

    • Selected for inclusion in The Best Lawyers in America® Ones to Watch™, 2026
    • Selected for inclusion in New York Metro Super Lawyers® Rising Stars™ in the Personal Injury General category, 2015-2023, 2025

Benjamin D. Greenfield

Greenfield & Noto Secure Dismissal of Premises Liability Claim Pending in Philadelphia County

Ben Greenfield (Partner-Philadelphia, PA) and Nicholas Noto (Associate-Philadelphia, PA) secured a victory in Philadelphia County for Wilson Elser’s clients, a property management group and a commercial/residential apartment owner after motion practice that lasted an entire calendar year. The plaintiff in this matter alleged injuries she sustained while on a residential property owned and managed by Wilson Elser’s clients. Plaintiff’s counsel filed a vaguely pled and legally impossible complaint in response to which Ben and Nicholas filed preliminary objections that the court sustained. The plaintiff subsequently filed four amended complaints, purported to be more specifically pled each time – but they were not. After the court dismissed each of the four complaints, Ben and Nicholas team filed a Motion to Prevent Further Amended Complaints, which was sustained by the court, and a final order was entered in favor of dismissing our clients with prejudice. The court’s ruling thwarted a demand in the high six figures and affirmed the precedent that pleadings in Philadelphia County must be legally plausible and pled with specificity.

Benjamin D. Greenfield and Nicholas G. Noto

Greenfield Obtains Appellate Victory on Behalf of Largest Casino Operator in New York City

Benjamin Greenfield (Partner-Philadelphia, PA) obtained a unanimous decision from the First Department Appellate Division, upholding denial of the plaintiff’s motion to certify its action as a class action on behalf of the largest casino operator in New York City. The plaintiff was banned from the casino for smashing a gaming machine and his refusal to pay for the damage. The plaintiff attempted to certify his claims as a class action, arguing that the casino improperly demands restitution and threatens arrest if patrons refuse to pay for the costs of repairs to the property they damaged. The trial court, in denying plaintiff’s Motion to Certify, ruled that NYS Gaming Bulletin #22, which requires casinos to detain individuals suspected of damaging casino property and to conduct an individualized investigation into the actions of each patron, is “a valid directive issued by the Gaming Commission that is legally binding on [the casino] and governs and authorizes certain actions by [the casino].” The Appellate Division affirmed this decision and specifically rejected the plaintiff’s contention that in publishing Bulletin 22, the Gaming Commission did not follow the rulemaking procedures set forth in the State Administrative Procedure Act, and agreed with the arguments set forth by Ben that the plaintiff’s claims involved unique circumstances that do not mirror those underlying the claims of the class proposed. Accordingly, the Court agreed that typicality is lacking and certification would not be proper. This is a notable decision that thwarts an attempted significant class action. At the very early stages of this matter, the plaintiff’s attorneys attempted to force our client into an early settlement by having an article published in the New York Post.

Benjamin D. Greenfield

Greenfield and Stein Score Landmark Summary Judgment in Hockey Puck Injury Case for Premiere Sports Venue

Benjamin Greenfield (Associate-White Plains) and Aviva Stein (Partner-New York) obtained summary judgment in New York County Supreme Court in a premises liability action involving a hockey puck strike injury at a New York professional arena, our client. The plaintiff alleged he was struck in the hand by a deflected puck while seated in section 115, row 3, located in the first row on the side of the arena, between the goal and the blue line and even with the faceoff circle. The shielding in place for this area comprised a combination of boards and plexiglass extending more than 9 feet above the ice/playing surface. The arena issued verbal and written warnings on the scoreboard concerning the risk of pucks entering unscreened seating areas and included warning language on the back all tickets. Following the close of discovery, Ben and Aviva moved for summary judgment pursuant to the prevailing “limited duty rule” in New York highlighting that the arena discharged its limited duty by erecting boards and glass around the arena’s perimeter that complied with and exceeded NHL regulations and arguing that the arena was not required to completely eliminate the risk of pucks entering the area along the side of the ice where plaintiff was seated, as it was not the area of greatest danger.

In opposition, plaintiff argued that he had the “justified expectation” that no pucks could come into his area since he was seated in the first row behind and below the level of the plexiglass screening in front of him.  Plaintiff further contended in circular fashion that because a puck came into an area, something must have been wrong with the shielding and the arena should have enacted further measures. On reply, Ben and Aviva highlighted that plaintiff failed to rebut that the Arena discharged its limited duty as a matter of law, stressed that plaintiff’s circular logic was not sufficient to create a factual issue with regard to the sufficiency of the spectator shielding, and distinguished the cases relied upon by the plaintiff, which either involved plaintiffs struck in the area behind the goal in the area of greatest danger or where an actual defect was proven with respect to the shielding measures provided.

Judge Bluth granted the Defendants’ motion agreeing that MSG is not required to eliminate the risk that a puck may enter the seating area on the side of the ice, which is not the area of greatest danger, as such a standard would be tantamount to requiring netting throughout the arena or boards that extend up to the ceiling. Remarkably, this is the first decision addressing and enforcing the application of the limited duty rule (applicable to proprietors of sporting venues) at the arena since the enhanced shielding measures (netting at the ends of the rink) were implemented in the Fall of 2002 in the wake of Brittany Cecil’s tragic death. This decision comes at a critical time given the expansion of netting in some baseball stadiums, the sport from which the limited duty rule derived, which was developed by some practitioners as a platform to try and undermine the limited duty rule and argue for a higher standard in the sport of Hockey. Barring any adverse development at the appellate level, which is not expected, this decision constitutes critical case law that supports the continued application of the limited duty rule to the sport of Hockey now and going forward.

Aviva Stein and Benjamin D. Greenfield

Lum, Stein, Greenfield and Herman Obtain Appellate Victory for Major Arena Client

Larry Lum (Partner-New York, NY), Aviva Stein (Partner-New York, NY), Ben Greenfield (Of Counsel-White Plains, NY) and Elie Herman (Associate-New York, NY | Stamford, CT) obtained a unanimous decision from the First Department Appellate Division, upholding the dismissal of a lawsuit against the firm’s major arena client. The underlying case involved a spectator sitting behind a plexiglass barrier who was hit and injured by a hockey puck at the arena. The court relied on case law established by the firm more than 20 years ago regarding the applicability of the limited duty rule and upholding shielding protections in place. This case, handled by Larry, was the first appellate-level review of the enhanced shielding measures adopted by the National Hockey League in 2002.

Larry Lum, Aviva Stein and Benjamin D. Greenfield

Partners Lum and Stein Prevail in Serious Slip-and-Fall Case

Larry Lum (Partner-New York City) and Aviva Stein (Partner-White Plains) secured a unanimous defense verdict on behalf of New York’s largest health care provider in a slip-and-fall case involving a serious femoral neck fracture with surgery. Benjamin Greenfield (Associate-White Plains) assisted with trial preparation and submissions in Suffolk County, Supreme Court. The case could not have settled for less than $750,000, but a unanimous verdict was rendered by a Suffolk County jury in favor of our client on the issue of liability after 12 minutes of deliberations.

Larry Lum, Aviva Stein and Benjamin D. Greenfield

Greenfield and Lum Score Landmark Summary Judgment in Assumption of Risk Case for Premiere Sports Venue

Benjamin Greenfield (Partner-Philadelphia, PA) and Larry Lum (Partner-New York, NY) convinced the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Queens, to grant their summary judgment motion on behalf of a premiere New York sports venue. The plaintiff alleged that a T-shirt was shot out of an air cannon at a “direct angle” to his location, which increased the ordinary risks inherent in the activity, and reported the incident to multiple news outlets. The court agreed with Ben and Larry that the plaintiff’s experience and keen observations of the air cannon operator at this and prior events reflect the open and obvious nature of the risk presented. The court also agreed that the plaintiff’s points raised regarding the “direct trajectory” of the shot making it more dangerous than other projections from the air cannon were speculative and insufficient to create a factual issue regarding the supposed “danger.” Further, the court noted that even accepting these allegations of a more direct angle as true, the plaintiff cannot prove that a more arced shot would have led to a different result. The court also noted that the plaintiff deliberately moved closer to the air cannon and placed himself in what he hoped to be the T-shirt’s direct path, which made his role as a participant even clearer and thus reinforces the application of the primary assumption of risk doctrine. Beyond being notable, this decision amounts more broadly to a favorable decision in the Assumption of Risk realm concerning what was an issue of first impression in New York regarding a patron being struck by a T-shirt projected into the stands.

Benjamin D. Greenfield and Larry Lum

Greenfield, Cash and Lum Defeat Certification of a Class Action for Casino Client for Second Time in Three Months

Benjamin Greenfield (Partner-Philadelphia, PA) and New York City partners Joshua Cash and Larry Lum succeeded in convincing the Kings County Supreme Court, Civil Term, to grant their pre-answer motion on behalf of the largest casino operator in New York City, to dismiss plaintiff’s claims in their entirety, including the dismissal of plaintiff’s individual and putative class action claims. Essentially, plaintiff, by and through her counsel, set forth conspiratorial claims that the casino is engaged in a deceptive practice to deprive patrons of their loose change. The plaintiff alleges that after receiving her cash-out voucher from the machine at the casino, she was only paid out the amount in whole dollars, and was not paid the full balance due, including the cents. The plaintiff sought to represent a class of all casino customers who were similarly deprived of their loose change. Notably, plaintiff’s counsel appeared to be taking the lead from similar attempted class actions claims sought to be certified against at least two other casinos in other jurisdictions around the country. Ben, Joshua and Larry obtained dismissal of the multiple causes of action set forth in plaintiff’s complaint, including violation of New York Business Law §§ 349 and 350, Breach of Contract, Conversion and Unjust Enrichment, and relied successfully on affidavits from casino personnel and photographic evidence that demonstrated conclusively there was nothing misleading about the defendant’s practices and that any forfeiture of such change was plaintiff’s own deliberate choice. The court also was convinced to dismiss plaintiff’s proposed class action claims insofar as the class definition was overbroad, sought to certify what was effectively a sham proceeding (the court specifically referenced within its 15-page decision the adage that “the law does not concern itself with trifles”), and would not be composed of persons with identical interests.  

Benjamin D. Greenfield, Joshua Cash and Larry Lum

Greenfield, Cash and Lum Prevail in Notorious Pro-Plaintiff Bronx County on Behalf of Largest Casino Operator in New York City

Benjamin Greenfield (Of Counsel-Philadelphia, PA), Joshua Cash (Partner-New York, NY) and Larry Lum (Partner-New York, NY) succeeded in convincing the Supreme Court of the State of New York County of Bronx, Civil Term, to deny the plaintiff’s motion to certify its action as a class action on behalf of their client, the largest casino operator in New York City. The plaintiff was banned from the casino for smashing a gaming machine at which he was losing money (and his refusal to pay for the damage). The plaintiff attempted to certify his claims as a class action arguing that the casino improperly demands restitution and threatens arrest if patrons refuse to pay for the costs of repairs to the property they damaged. Ben, Joshua and Larry relied on NYS Gaming Bulletin #22, which required the casino to detain individuals suspected of damaging casino property and to conduct an individualized investigation into the actions of each patron. The plaintiff argued that the Bulletin was null and void and without legal effect as it was not filed in the office of the department of state, and that it denied those patrons due process. The Hon. Veronica G. Hummel, A.J.S.C., in an extremely notable manner, ruled that Bulletin # 22 is “a valid directive issued by the Gaming Commission that is legally binding on [the casino] and governs and authorizes certain actions by [the casino].” At the very early stages of this matter, the plaintiff’s attorneys attempted to force our client into an early settlement by having an article published in the New York Post.

Joshua Cash, Larry Lum and Benjamin D. Greenfield

Privacy Settings
Your Privacy Choices
We value your privacy. Under privacy laws in your jurisdiction, you have the right to control how your personal information is used, including the right to opt out of the “sale” or “sharing” of your personal information for cross-context behavioral advertising. You may also limit the use of your sensitive personal information.

Below, you can review and adjust your cookie and data sharing preferences. For more information about how we use your data, please see our Privacy Policy.

Your Rights and Choices

Opt Out of Sale or Sharing: You may opt out of the sale or sharing of your personal information for advertising and analytics purposes by turning off Advertising & Targeting Cookies. We will honor your choice and will not sell or share your personal information for these purposes unless you enable these cookies again. Wilson Elser does not sell or share personal information in any other manner.

Limit Use of Sensitive Personal Information: If we collect sensitive personal information, you may limit its use to only what is necessary to provide requested services by adjusting your preferences here. Please contact privacy@wilsonelser.com with any questions.

Global Privacy Control: We honor browser-based opt-out signals, such as the Global Privacy Control (GPC). If we detect such a signal, your opt-out preference will be automatically applied.
These cookies are essential for the website to function and cannot be switched off in our systems. They are usually set in response to actions made by you, such as setting your privacy preferences, logging in, or filling in forms.
These cookies enable the website to provide enhanced functionality and personalization. If you do not allow these cookies, some or all of these services may not function properly.
These cookies allow us to count visits and traffic sources so we can measure and improve the performance of our site. They may be set through our site by us or our analytics partners to understand your interests and deliver more relevant content to you. If you do not allow these cookies, we will not know when you have visited our site