Carolyn F. O'Connor

Brian Myers (Of Counsel-Washington, DC) will present the Wilson Elser Forum webinar “Class Action Settlements: Legal Issues and Practical Mechanics” on April 22, 2026. This session provides a comprehensive overview of the settlement process, from negotiation protocols and structuring class benefits to satisfying fairness requirements, managing notice obligations, and addressing attorney fee methodologies. Brian will offer guidance on surviving objections and avoiding common procedural pitfalls that can derail even well-negotiated resolutions.

Ian Stewart, cochair of Wilson Elser’s Cannabis Law Practice, will present the webinar “Cannabis in a Patchwork Regulatory Environment” on April 23, 2026, hosted by the Claims and Litigation Alliance (CLM) and the Insurance Accounting & Systems Association (IASA), affiliated with The Institutes. Ian’s panel will explore evolving claim trends in cannabis operations, examining the cannabis product liability landscape, including testing lab failures and related claims, as well as emerging product, environmental, and toxic tort exposures. The panel will also address state versus federal legal conflicts around both marijuana and hemp, including rescheduling and the new Farm Bill definition of hemp, as well as contract enforceability and the rights of cannabis litigants.

Super Lawyers® has named Taylor H. Allin (Partner-Phoenix, AZ) to the 2026 Southwest Rising Stars™ list for the sixth consecutive year. Taylor is included in the Transportation/Maritime category. His complex litigation practice includes defending a wide range of transportation matters and marine and admiralty claims. The Rising Stars lists, comprising the best attorneys 40 years old and younger or who have practiced law for 10 years or less, are published in Super Lawyers magazines and leading city and regional magazines nationwide. No more than 2.5 percent of the lawyers in the state are named to these lists.

Albany partners Christopher Priore and Peter Lauricella successfully represented a research company and its owner/president in a CPLR Article 78 proceeding in the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, challenging the New York State Department of Labor’s (DOL) denial of the clients’ application for a license to purchase, own, possess, and transport explosives (O&P license). The company, which conducts limited fireworks displays as part of its business, must maintain an O&P license issued under Labor Law Article 16, which must be renewed annually. In July 2021, our owner client applied to renew the company’s O&P license. The DOL denied the application on the sole ground that neither the owner nor any employee held a current Pyrotechnician Certificate of Competence (PCC), despite the owner having held a PCC for many years and the company having previously obtained O&P license renewals without one. The denial was upheld after an administrative hearing and adopted by the Commissioner of Labor. Chris and Peter challenged the Commissioner's authority to impose a blanket PCC requirement as a prerequisite for O&P licensure. The central legal issue was whether the Department of Labor's internal policy – mandating that all O&P license applicants hold or employ someone with a PCC credential – constituted a "rule" subject to the formal rulemaking procedures of the State Administrative Procedure Act (SAPA). They presented evidence that the DOL had historically approved O&P license applications without a PCC, and only later, after internal discussions and consultation with counsel, adopted this requirement and added a question about PCCs to the application form – all without undertaking the required rulemaking process. The Appellate Division unanimously agreed and annulled the Commissioner's determination. The court held that the mandatory PCC requirement was a generally applicable rule that should have been promulgated in accordance with SAPA's formal rulemaking procedures. Because the DOL failed to do so, the requirement was unenforceable. The matter was remitted to the DOL to evaluate the O&P license application at issue in accordance with properly promulgated rules and our clients’ particular facts and circumstances.  

Richard Bortnick (Of Counsel-Philadelphia, PA) and Charina Michaud (Associate-Chicago, IL) coauthored “Legal Analysis: Insurer Subrogation Under Scrutiny,” appearing in the April 17, 2026, posting of Claims Journal. The article analyzes two recent decisions – Axis Insurance Co. v. Barracuda Networks, Inc. and Travelers Casualty and Surety Co. of America v. Blackbaud, Inc. – that examine the scope of insurers’ subrogation rights in the wake of data security breaches. Rick and Charina explain that while the First Circuit in Axis rejected subrogation claims against a downstream vendor for lack of contractual privity, the Delaware Supreme Court in Travelers allowed similar claims to proceed where a direct contractual relationship existed. Together, the decisions clarify that subrogation claims in the cybersecurity context hinge on the existence and proper pleading of contractual relationships between the insured and the alleged wrongdoer. “Absent a contractual relationship between the insured and the alleged subrogee, a claim for indemnity or subrogation is unlikely to survive – particularly in jurisdictions that follow the reasoning in Axis.” Rick and Charina further explore how these rulings shape risk allocation across vendor chains and offer practical considerations for drafting and enforcing data security agreements. 

Michael S. Takacs (Partner-Philadelphia, PA) and Andrew Rossi (Associate-Philadelphia, PA) prevailed on a motion for summary judgment in the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, on behalf of Wilson Elser’s client, a property owner/landlord. The plaintiff, a tenant at the client’s apartment complex, allegedly sustained a forehead laceration, concussion, post-concussion syndrome, and injuries to her neck after striking her forehead on a dumpster’s trunnion bar while taking out her trash. She claimed the trunnion bar, which a truck uses to lift the dumpster during emptying, was a dangerous condition because it “sticks out inconspicuously” and lacked warnings or contrasting paint to make it more visible. The codefendant waste management company supplied and serviced the dumpster under a customer service agreement with our client, retained ownership, and specifically prohibited the client from altering it. The plaintiff, who had lived at the property for more than a year, admitted to using the dumpster at least weekly to dispose of her trash. Michael and Andrew moved for summary judgment, asserting that the client neither owed nor breached a legal duty of care to protect the plaintiff where the alleged condition of the trunnion bar was open, obvious, and readily visible on equipment the client did not own or control. The court entered summary judgment on behalf of the client, dismissing all claims and crossclaims.

While arbitration clauses are ubiquitous in contracts, they are meaningless if the parties do not move quickly enough to enforce them. In Lennar Communities Nevada, LLC v. Whalen, the plaintiff executed a residential purchase and sale agreement that included an arbitration clause. She then tripped and fell within the community. She sued the developer, and the parties participated in extensive discovery. The developer did not attempt to enforce the arbitration clause for 17 months. While waiver is disfavored, the Supreme Court concluded that the three-factor test for waiver was satisfied. First, the developer knew of the waiver. Second, they acted inconsistently with the right to arbitrate by actively litigating the case in court for such a long time. The Court then introduced a new factor to the analysis. “[C]ourts should consider the totality of the circumstances when evaluating whether a party has already litigated an issue it subsequently seeks to arbitrate.” That factor was met too. The Court next considered whether not invoking the arbitration clause earlier prejudiced the plaintiff. It expressed doubt whether that factor was valid but did not overrule it. Regardless, prejudice was found because the developer was able to obtain discovery in court that typically is unavailable in arbitration. The opinion reiterates the importance of identifying potential arbitration clauses and deciding whether to invoke them as soon as possible.

New York – April 20, 2026 – National law firm Wilson Elser today announced the addition of Elizabeth Olson as a partner in its Denver office, strengthening the firm's Design Professionals and Construction practices. Olson joins Wilson Elser from a regional litigation firm focused on tort and commercial litigation, bringing more than a decade of experience successfully defending complex construction, design professional, and commercial matters across various jurisdictions. “For 15 years, Wilson Elser’s Denver office has offered full-service legal support for clients in the Rocky Mountain region,” said Wilson Elser Chair Daniel J. McMahon. "Elizabeth's arrival deepens our bench in critical practice areas and reflects our continued investment in attracting top-tier talent to serve our clients." “Elizabeth’s hiring enhances our existing practices in Denver,” said Jason Melichar, regional managing partner of Wilson Elser’s Denver office. “She will work closely with Ryan Williams, our Denver-based cochair of the firm’s Design Professionals Practice, in defending architects and engineers in construction defect matters.” Olson noted that her decision to join the firm was informed by firsthand experience litigating cases opposite Wilson Elser's Denver attorneys. “The firm has an outstanding reputation in the civil litigation defense community, and I am confident that its robust platform and resources will serve my clients exceptionally well," she said. Olson's practice encompasses a broad range of civil defense matters, including construction and design professional liability, premises liability, general casualty, contract disputes, commercial litigation, product liability, and transportation. She has represented clients in state and federal courts in Colorado and Arizona. Olson earned her J.D. from Arizona State University's Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law and her B.A. in Economics and Ancient Mediterranean Civilizations from Rice University.

David Ross (Partner-Washington, DC) will present the Wilson Elser Forum webinar “The Inclusion of Uninjured Members in Certified Class Actions” on April 23, 2026. This session addresses standing and predominance challenges, damages models, and the procedural complexities that arise when a certified class includes individuals who may not have suffered cognizable harm. David will analyze current case law, explore strategies for certification and decertification motions, and discuss practical solutions for managing these issues at trial.

The New York Avoiding Vexatious Overuse of Impleading to Delay (AVOID) Act became effective on April 18, 2026, establishing new deadlines for third-party complaints. Under this Act, a third-party plaintiff must file their complaint within 90 days of serving the initial answer pursuant to CPLR § 1007(b).1 Any third-party complaint against a plaintiff’s employer, however, must be filed within 90 days of the later of (1) discovering the employer’s identity; or (2) determining that the plaintiff sustained a “grave injury” as defined by Section 11 of the Workers’ Compensation Law. CPLR § 1007(e).2 The Act prohibits filing a third-party complaint after the note of issue unless upon good cause shown or in the interest of justice. CPLR § 1007(c).3 A third-party action filed in violation of this subdivision shall be severed or dismissed without prejudice. CPLR § 1007(d).4 Any severed actions that are initiated as new actions cannot then be consolidated. CPLR § 1007(f).5 Regarding retroactivity: an amendment clarifies that the Act applies to all cases commenced on or after the April 18, 2026 effective date.6 Be advised that as of April 16, 2026, the New York State website has not yet integrated this amendment into the statutory text.7 Lexis captures this update in the editor’s notes,8 and Westlaw includes it within the proposed legislation section.9 ____________________________________________________________________________________ 1 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CVP/1007  2 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CVP/1007  3 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CVP/1007  4 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CVP/1007  5 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CVP/1007  6 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2025/S8809  7 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CVP/1007  8 2026 N.Y. ALS 79 ; 2026 N.Y. Laws 79 ; 2026 N.Y. Ch. 79 ; 2026 N.Y. SB 8809 9 https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/NFE11DA10E4E211F0AA39CB673CF36EC6/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=Search/v1/results/navigation/i0a93b86c0000019d9c1ba0e5c3a0e723?ppcid=44f5a950322a4255ae42b3e5a5e57b22&Nav=MULTIPLECITATIONS&fragmentIdentifier=NFE11DA10E4E211F0AA39CB673CF36EC6&parentRank=0&startIndex=1&contextData=%28sc.Search%29&transitionType=UniqueDocItem&listSource=Search&listPageSource=781efccd7c647a1b5673e671cb33d842&list=MULTIPLECITATIONS&sessionScopeId=a4a94ca7e43970d7bb6b9036b5ab4e414796eb2f36e0a800dc47d1459a582deb&ppcid=44f5a950322a4255ae42b3e5a5e57b22&originationContext=NonUniqueFindSelected&transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=(sc.Search)

Super Lawyers® has named Taylor H. Allin (Partner-Phoenix, AZ) to the 2026 Southwest Rising Stars™ list for the sixth consecutive year. Taylor is included in the Transportation/Maritime category. His complex litigation practice includes defending a wide range of transportation matters and marine and admiralty claims. The Rising Stars lists, comprising the best attorneys 40 years old and younger or who have practiced law for 10 years or less, are published in Super Lawyers magazines and leading city and regional magazines nationwide. No more than 2.5 percent of the lawyers in the state are named to these lists.

Ian Stewart, cochair of Wilson Elser’s Cannabis Law Practice, will present the webinar “Cannabis in a Patchwork Regulatory Environment” on April 23, 2026, hosted by the Claims and Litigation Alliance (CLM) and the Insurance Accounting & Systems Association (IASA), affiliated with The Institutes. Ian’s panel will explore evolving claim trends in cannabis operations, examining the cannabis product liability landscape, including testing lab failures and related claims, as well as emerging product, environmental, and toxic tort exposures. The panel will also address state versus federal legal conflicts around both marijuana and hemp, including rescheduling and the new Farm Bill definition of hemp, as well as contract enforceability and the rights of cannabis litigants.

Brian Myers (Of Counsel-Washington, DC) will present the Wilson Elser Forum webinar “Class Action Settlements: Legal Issues and Practical Mechanics” on April 22, 2026. This session provides a comprehensive overview of the settlement process, from negotiation protocols and structuring class benefits to satisfying fairness requirements, managing notice obligations, and addressing attorney fee methodologies. Brian will offer guidance on surviving objections and avoiding common procedural pitfalls that can derail even well-negotiated resolutions.

Albany partners Christopher Priore and Peter Lauricella successfully represented a research company and its owner/president in a CPLR Article 78 proceeding in the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, challenging the New York State Department of Labor’s (DOL) denial of the clients’ application for a license to purchase, own, possess, and transport explosives (O&P license). The company, which conducts limited fireworks displays as part of its business, must maintain an O&P license issued under Labor Law Article 16, which must be renewed annually. In July 2021, our owner client applied to renew the company’s O&P license. The DOL denied the application on the sole ground that neither the owner nor any employee held a current Pyrotechnician Certificate of Competence (PCC), despite the owner having held a PCC for many years and the company having previously obtained O&P license renewals without one. The denial was upheld after an administrative hearing and adopted by the Commissioner of Labor. Chris and Peter challenged the Commissioner's authority to impose a blanket PCC requirement as a prerequisite for O&P licensure. The central legal issue was whether the Department of Labor's internal policy – mandating that all O&P license applicants hold or employ someone with a PCC credential – constituted a "rule" subject to the formal rulemaking procedures of the State Administrative Procedure Act (SAPA). They presented evidence that the DOL had historically approved O&P license applications without a PCC, and only later, after internal discussions and consultation with counsel, adopted this requirement and added a question about PCCs to the application form – all without undertaking the required rulemaking process. The Appellate Division unanimously agreed and annulled the Commissioner's determination. The court held that the mandatory PCC requirement was a generally applicable rule that should have been promulgated in accordance with SAPA's formal rulemaking procedures. Because the DOL failed to do so, the requirement was unenforceable. The matter was remitted to the DOL to evaluate the O&P license application at issue in accordance with properly promulgated rules and our clients’ particular facts and circumstances.  

Richard Bortnick (Of Counsel-Philadelphia, PA) and Charina Michaud (Associate-Chicago, IL) coauthored “Legal Analysis: Insurer Subrogation Under Scrutiny,” appearing in the April 17, 2026, posting of Claims Journal. The article analyzes two recent decisions – Axis Insurance Co. v. Barracuda Networks, Inc. and Travelers Casualty and Surety Co. of America v. Blackbaud, Inc. – that examine the scope of insurers’ subrogation rights in the wake of data security breaches. Rick and Charina explain that while the First Circuit in Axis rejected subrogation claims against a downstream vendor for lack of contractual privity, the Delaware Supreme Court in Travelers allowed similar claims to proceed where a direct contractual relationship existed. Together, the decisions clarify that subrogation claims in the cybersecurity context hinge on the existence and proper pleading of contractual relationships between the insured and the alleged wrongdoer. “Absent a contractual relationship between the insured and the alleged subrogee, a claim for indemnity or subrogation is unlikely to survive – particularly in jurisdictions that follow the reasoning in Axis.” Rick and Charina further explore how these rulings shape risk allocation across vendor chains and offer practical considerations for drafting and enforcing data security agreements. 

Michael S. Takacs (Partner-Philadelphia, PA) and Andrew Rossi (Associate-Philadelphia, PA) prevailed on a motion for summary judgment in the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, on behalf of Wilson Elser’s client, a property owner/landlord. The plaintiff, a tenant at the client’s apartment complex, allegedly sustained a forehead laceration, concussion, post-concussion syndrome, and injuries to her neck after striking her forehead on a dumpster’s trunnion bar while taking out her trash. She claimed the trunnion bar, which a truck uses to lift the dumpster during emptying, was a dangerous condition because it “sticks out inconspicuously” and lacked warnings or contrasting paint to make it more visible. The codefendant waste management company supplied and serviced the dumpster under a customer service agreement with our client, retained ownership, and specifically prohibited the client from altering it. The plaintiff, who had lived at the property for more than a year, admitted to using the dumpster at least weekly to dispose of her trash. Michael and Andrew moved for summary judgment, asserting that the client neither owed nor breached a legal duty of care to protect the plaintiff where the alleged condition of the trunnion bar was open, obvious, and readily visible on equipment the client did not own or control. The court entered summary judgment on behalf of the client, dismissing all claims and crossclaims.

While arbitration clauses are ubiquitous in contracts, they are meaningless if the parties do not move quickly enough to enforce them. In Lennar Communities Nevada, LLC v. Whalen, the plaintiff executed a residential purchase and sale agreement that included an arbitration clause. She then tripped and fell within the community. She sued the developer, and the parties participated in extensive discovery. The developer did not attempt to enforce the arbitration clause for 17 months. While waiver is disfavored, the Supreme Court concluded that the three-factor test for waiver was satisfied. First, the developer knew of the waiver. Second, they acted inconsistently with the right to arbitrate by actively litigating the case in court for such a long time. The Court then introduced a new factor to the analysis. “[C]ourts should consider the totality of the circumstances when evaluating whether a party has already litigated an issue it subsequently seeks to arbitrate.” That factor was met too. The Court next considered whether not invoking the arbitration clause earlier prejudiced the plaintiff. It expressed doubt whether that factor was valid but did not overrule it. Regardless, prejudice was found because the developer was able to obtain discovery in court that typically is unavailable in arbitration. The opinion reiterates the importance of identifying potential arbitration clauses and deciding whether to invoke them as soon as possible.

New York – April 20, 2026 – National law firm Wilson Elser today announced the addition of Elizabeth Olson as a partner in its Denver office, strengthening the firm's Design Professionals and Construction practices. Olson joins Wilson Elser from a regional litigation firm focused on tort and commercial litigation, bringing more than a decade of experience successfully defending complex construction, design professional, and commercial matters across various jurisdictions. “For 15 years, Wilson Elser’s Denver office has offered full-service legal support for clients in the Rocky Mountain region,” said Wilson Elser Chair Daniel J. McMahon. "Elizabeth's arrival deepens our bench in critical practice areas and reflects our continued investment in attracting top-tier talent to serve our clients." “Elizabeth’s hiring enhances our existing practices in Denver,” said Jason Melichar, regional managing partner of Wilson Elser’s Denver office. “She will work closely with Ryan Williams, our Denver-based cochair of the firm’s Design Professionals Practice, in defending architects and engineers in construction defect matters.” Olson noted that her decision to join the firm was informed by firsthand experience litigating cases opposite Wilson Elser's Denver attorneys. “The firm has an outstanding reputation in the civil litigation defense community, and I am confident that its robust platform and resources will serve my clients exceptionally well," she said. Olson's practice encompasses a broad range of civil defense matters, including construction and design professional liability, premises liability, general casualty, contract disputes, commercial litigation, product liability, and transportation. She has represented clients in state and federal courts in Colorado and Arizona. Olson earned her J.D. from Arizona State University's Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law and her B.A. in Economics and Ancient Mediterranean Civilizations from Rice University.

David Ross (Partner-Washington, DC) will present the Wilson Elser Forum webinar “The Inclusion of Uninjured Members in Certified Class Actions” on April 23, 2026. This session addresses standing and predominance challenges, damages models, and the procedural complexities that arise when a certified class includes individuals who may not have suffered cognizable harm. David will analyze current case law, explore strategies for certification and decertification motions, and discuss practical solutions for managing these issues at trial.

The New York Avoiding Vexatious Overuse of Impleading to Delay (AVOID) Act became effective on April 18, 2026, establishing new deadlines for third-party complaints. Under this Act, a third-party plaintiff must file their complaint within 90 days of serving the initial answer pursuant to CPLR § 1007(b).1 Any third-party complaint against a plaintiff’s employer, however, must be filed within 90 days of the later of (1) discovering the employer’s identity; or (2) determining that the plaintiff sustained a “grave injury” as defined by Section 11 of the Workers’ Compensation Law. CPLR § 1007(e).2 The Act prohibits filing a third-party complaint after the note of issue unless upon good cause shown or in the interest of justice. CPLR § 1007(c).3 A third-party action filed in violation of this subdivision shall be severed or dismissed without prejudice. CPLR § 1007(d).4 Any severed actions that are initiated as new actions cannot then be consolidated. CPLR § 1007(f).5 Regarding retroactivity: an amendment clarifies that the Act applies to all cases commenced on or after the April 18, 2026 effective date.6 Be advised that as of April 16, 2026, the New York State website has not yet integrated this amendment into the statutory text.7 Lexis captures this update in the editor’s notes,8 and Westlaw includes it within the proposed legislation section.9 ____________________________________________________________________________________ 1 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CVP/1007  2 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CVP/1007  3 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CVP/1007  4 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CVP/1007  5 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CVP/1007  6 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2025/S8809  7 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CVP/1007  8 2026 N.Y. ALS 79 ; 2026 N.Y. Laws 79 ; 2026 N.Y. Ch. 79 ; 2026 N.Y. SB 8809 9 https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/NFE11DA10E4E211F0AA39CB673CF36EC6/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=Search/v1/results/navigation/i0a93b86c0000019d9c1ba0e5c3a0e723?ppcid=44f5a950322a4255ae42b3e5a5e57b22&Nav=MULTIPLECITATIONS&fragmentIdentifier=NFE11DA10E4E211F0AA39CB673CF36EC6&parentRank=0&startIndex=1&contextData=%28sc.Search%29&transitionType=UniqueDocItem&listSource=Search&listPageSource=781efccd7c647a1b5673e671cb33d842&list=MULTIPLECITATIONS&sessionScopeId=a4a94ca7e43970d7bb6b9036b5ab4e414796eb2f36e0a800dc47d1459a582deb&ppcid=44f5a950322a4255ae42b3e5a5e57b22&originationContext=NonUniqueFindSelected&transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=(sc.Search)

Super Lawyers® has named Taylor H. Allin (Partner-Phoenix, AZ) to the 2026 Southwest Rising Stars™ list for the sixth consecutive year. Taylor is included in the Transportation/Maritime category. His complex litigation practice includes defending a wide range of transportation matters and marine and admiralty claims. The Rising Stars lists, comprising the best attorneys 40 years old and younger or who have practiced law for 10 years or less, are published in Super Lawyers magazines and leading city and regional magazines nationwide. No more than 2.5 percent of the lawyers in the state are named to these lists.

Ian Stewart, cochair of Wilson Elser’s Cannabis Law Practice, will present the webinar “Cannabis in a Patchwork Regulatory Environment” on April 23, 2026, hosted by the Claims and Litigation Alliance (CLM) and the Insurance Accounting & Systems Association (IASA), affiliated with The Institutes. Ian’s panel will explore evolving claim trends in cannabis operations, examining the cannabis product liability landscape, including testing lab failures and related claims, as well as emerging product, environmental, and toxic tort exposures. The panel will also address state versus federal legal conflicts around both marijuana and hemp, including rescheduling and the new Farm Bill definition of hemp, as well as contract enforceability and the rights of cannabis litigants.

Brian Myers (Of Counsel-Washington, DC) will present the Wilson Elser Forum webinar “Class Action Settlements: Legal Issues and Practical Mechanics” on April 22, 2026. This session provides a comprehensive overview of the settlement process, from negotiation protocols and structuring class benefits to satisfying fairness requirements, managing notice obligations, and addressing attorney fee methodologies. Brian will offer guidance on surviving objections and avoiding common procedural pitfalls that can derail even well-negotiated resolutions.

Albany partners Christopher Priore and Peter Lauricella successfully represented a research company and its owner/president in a CPLR Article 78 proceeding in the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, challenging the New York State Department of Labor’s (DOL) denial of the clients’ application for a license to purchase, own, possess, and transport explosives (O&P license). The company, which conducts limited fireworks displays as part of its business, must maintain an O&P license issued under Labor Law Article 16, which must be renewed annually. In July 2021, our owner client applied to renew the company’s O&P license. The DOL denied the application on the sole ground that neither the owner nor any employee held a current Pyrotechnician Certificate of Competence (PCC), despite the owner having held a PCC for many years and the company having previously obtained O&P license renewals without one. The denial was upheld after an administrative hearing and adopted by the Commissioner of Labor. Chris and Peter challenged the Commissioner's authority to impose a blanket PCC requirement as a prerequisite for O&P licensure. The central legal issue was whether the Department of Labor's internal policy – mandating that all O&P license applicants hold or employ someone with a PCC credential – constituted a "rule" subject to the formal rulemaking procedures of the State Administrative Procedure Act (SAPA). They presented evidence that the DOL had historically approved O&P license applications without a PCC, and only later, after internal discussions and consultation with counsel, adopted this requirement and added a question about PCCs to the application form – all without undertaking the required rulemaking process. The Appellate Division unanimously agreed and annulled the Commissioner's determination. The court held that the mandatory PCC requirement was a generally applicable rule that should have been promulgated in accordance with SAPA's formal rulemaking procedures. Because the DOL failed to do so, the requirement was unenforceable. The matter was remitted to the DOL to evaluate the O&P license application at issue in accordance with properly promulgated rules and our clients’ particular facts and circumstances.  

Richard Bortnick (Of Counsel-Philadelphia, PA) and Charina Michaud (Associate-Chicago, IL) coauthored “Legal Analysis: Insurer Subrogation Under Scrutiny,” appearing in the April 17, 2026, posting of Claims Journal. The article analyzes two recent decisions – Axis Insurance Co. v. Barracuda Networks, Inc. and Travelers Casualty and Surety Co. of America v. Blackbaud, Inc. – that examine the scope of insurers’ subrogation rights in the wake of data security breaches. Rick and Charina explain that while the First Circuit in Axis rejected subrogation claims against a downstream vendor for lack of contractual privity, the Delaware Supreme Court in Travelers allowed similar claims to proceed where a direct contractual relationship existed. Together, the decisions clarify that subrogation claims in the cybersecurity context hinge on the existence and proper pleading of contractual relationships between the insured and the alleged wrongdoer. “Absent a contractual relationship between the insured and the alleged subrogee, a claim for indemnity or subrogation is unlikely to survive – particularly in jurisdictions that follow the reasoning in Axis.” Rick and Charina further explore how these rulings shape risk allocation across vendor chains and offer practical considerations for drafting and enforcing data security agreements. 

Michael S. Takacs (Partner-Philadelphia, PA) and Andrew Rossi (Associate-Philadelphia, PA) prevailed on a motion for summary judgment in the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, on behalf of Wilson Elser’s client, a property owner/landlord. The plaintiff, a tenant at the client’s apartment complex, allegedly sustained a forehead laceration, concussion, post-concussion syndrome, and injuries to her neck after striking her forehead on a dumpster’s trunnion bar while taking out her trash. She claimed the trunnion bar, which a truck uses to lift the dumpster during emptying, was a dangerous condition because it “sticks out inconspicuously” and lacked warnings or contrasting paint to make it more visible. The codefendant waste management company supplied and serviced the dumpster under a customer service agreement with our client, retained ownership, and specifically prohibited the client from altering it. The plaintiff, who had lived at the property for more than a year, admitted to using the dumpster at least weekly to dispose of her trash. Michael and Andrew moved for summary judgment, asserting that the client neither owed nor breached a legal duty of care to protect the plaintiff where the alleged condition of the trunnion bar was open, obvious, and readily visible on equipment the client did not own or control. The court entered summary judgment on behalf of the client, dismissing all claims and crossclaims.