Biography | Daniel K. Joseph

New York, NY

p. 212.915.5598

Download my vCard

Download my Bio

Daniel Joseph is an experienced litigator who focuses his practice on the defense of claims related to general liability, premises liability, product liability, construction disputes, and property damage. Additionally, he is well-versed in handling subrogation and insurance coverage matters, as well as defending actions brought under New York State Labor Law. Daniel has a proven track record of achieving favorable outcomes for clients efficiently and cost-effectively, prioritizing each client’s specific goals and objectives in developing strategic defense strategies.

Prior to joining Wilson Elser, Daniel worked at an established regional firm where he handled civil litigation in a broad range of practice areas. Previously, he practiced at a full-service litigation firm in New York City, as well as at a global company that offers legal technology solutions and services, including eDiscovery, document review, and risk management and compliance.

Areas of Focus

Construction and Labor Law
In the areas of construction and labor law, including workers’ compensation exposures, Daniel has successfully defended building owners, general contractors, and carriers against complex claims alleging serious injury.

Education

University of Lagos, Nigeria (LL.B. Law, with honors, 2009)

Bar Admissions

New York
District of Columbia

Court Admissions

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

Professional Affiliations

New York State Bar Association
District of Columbia Bar Association
American Bar Association

Daniel Joseph is an experienced litigator who focuses his practice on the defense of claims related to general liability, premises liability, product liability, construction disputes, and property damage. Additionally, he is well-versed in handling subrogation and insurance coverage matters, as well as defending actions brought under New York State Labor Law. Daniel has a proven track record of achieving favorable outcomes for clients efficiently and cost-effectively, prioritizing each client’s specific goals and objectives in developing strategic defense strategies.

Prior to joining Wilson Elser, Daniel worked at an established regional firm where he handled civil litigation in a broad range of practice areas. Previously, he practiced at a full-service litigation firm in New York City, as well as at a global company that offers legal technology solutions and services, including eDiscovery, document review, and risk management and compliance.

Hsu, Joseph, and Poththewela Obtain Complete Dismissal of Contractor from Construction Injury Litigation

John Hsu (Partner-Long Island, NY), Daniel Joseph (Associate-New York, NY), and Isuri Poththewela (Associate-Long Island, NY) obtained summary judgment in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, on behalf of Wilson Elser’s contractor client in a workplace injury case. The plaintiff claimed to have sustained serious injuries, including a traumatic brain injury (TBI), when a rolling paint cart struck him on a loading dock while working at a construction site. He alleged violations under New York Labor Law §§ 240(1), 241(6), and 200. John and Daniel conducted a thorough analysis of the loading dock surveillance footage, which clearly established that the instrumentality of harm was neither launched, controlled, nor possessed by our client, a contractor on the premises hired to perform repair work on the building’s fifth floor, far from the alleged accident location.

In support of Wilson Elser’s motion for summary judgment, John and Daniel tendered the original contract, along with affidavits from the client’s foreman and branch director, as exhibits to the affirmation in support. They further argued that the client owed no legal duty to the plaintiff and that the client’s work at the premises was separate and distinct from the loading dock operations that allegedly caused the plaintiff’s injuries. They also sought dismissal of all cross-claims against the client.

The court agreed and dismissed the plaintiff’s claim and the cross-claims against the client. In reaching that decision, the court reasoned that the opposition tendered no evidence and relied solely on the affirmation of counsel, which was purely hearsay and devoid of evidentiary value. Thus, there being no real, substantive opposition submitted, the motion for summary judgment was granted in its entirety.

John A. Hsu, Daniel K. Joseph and Isuri Poththewela K