john.hsu@wilsonelser.com

Download my vCard

Download my Bio

John Hsu is a trial lawyer and accomplished litigator who practices in state and federal courts, notably in Kings County, Nassau County and the Southern District of New York. John handles all aspects of litigation, including trial preparation, substantive motions, mediations and more. A tenacious litigator who zealously advocates for his clients, John focuses on an initial fact investigation to develop the most cost-efficient and meaningful strategy for eventual resolution.

Specializing in general liability, including premise, automobile and construction matters, John has deep knowledge of the federal guidelines, regulations and industry standards that must be factored in to an effective defense. He uses his substantial experience to develop trial themes that allow for the presentation of evidence in a manner designed to educate the jury in a way that helps them to determine facts in his client's favor.

Areas of Focus

General Liability
John is highly experienced with general liability cases involving personal injury and property damage claims in state and federal courts for national commercial clients and individual owners. He has particular experience litigating complex personal injury claims involving premises, construction and property damage, as well as owners and general contractors in construction site accidents

Transportation
John has successfully defended trucking carriers, commercial transportation carriers, and taxi and livery fleets. He represents bus lines, small to large fleet carriers, freight forwarders and brokers, shippers, and taxi and limousine companies. John understands the unique issues facing companies that transport cargo and people, first- and third-party liability, subrogation issues, and the interplay of legislation surrounding vehicle operation and ownership responsibility.

Emergency Response
John is a leader of Wilson Elser’s Rapid Response team, providing swift, comprehensive support for clients in the event of catastrophes and multiple fatality accidents, such as truck and bus crashes, elevator and escalator incidents, factory explosions or building collapses. Fully engaged, often within hours of the event, the team is on-site gathering the information and witness insights that can help clients manage investigatory demands and fortify potential future litigation defenses.

    Education

    • Albany Law School (J.D., cum laude, 2003)
      • Albany Law Journal of Science and Technology
    • Marist College (B.S., 2000)

    Bar Admissions

    • New York

    Court Admissions

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

John A. Hsu

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