Jay Hamad

Partner | New York, United States
Get in touch

Profile

Education

  • Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey School of Law, JD, 2005
  • New York University, BA (cum laude), 2002

Jay Hamad is a partner in the New York and Basking Ridge offices. His practice focuses on the construction and shipping industries. He primarily litigates all manners of construction defect, construction injury, property damage, New York Labor Law, admiralty, maritime, cargo and coverage matters. Jay represents construction managers, general contractors, sub-contractors and property owners in suits brought against them in construction defect claims, construction accidents, issues of code violations, and building and design-related deficiencies. Jay also defends clients in maritime law claims involving the Jones Act, Longshore and Harbor Workers Act, cargo defense and coverage. He has served as lead counsel in jury trials and binding arbitrations which have yielded defense verdicts and positive outcomes for his clients. 

He has represented clients ranging from multinational corporations to small family owned businesses in state and federal district courts in a wide variety of marine, commercial, casualty and complex medical malpractice litigation. He has served as lead trial counsel in cases in 3 states and 2 federal districts. 

From 2005 to 2006, Jay served as a Law Clerk to the Honorable Bryan D. Garruto of the Superior Court of New Jersey, Middlesex County. Jay is also a member of the Board of Directors of the Marine and Insurance Claims Association, as well as a certified Proctor in Admiralty for the Maritime Law Association of the United States.

Related articles

News

Kennedys continues US growth with the addition of seven attorneys in New York and New Jersey

29/01/2024

View more

Qualifications and admissions

  • New Jersey
  • New York
  • US District Court, New Jersey
  • US District Court, Northern, Eastern, Southern Districts of New York
  • US Court of Appeals, Second and Third Circuits

Market recognition

  • Recognized as a “Client Service All-Star” by BTI Consulting (2024)
  • Recognized as “AV Preeminent” by Martindale Hubbell

Work highlights

  • Served as lead trial counsel in a successful defense of a general contractor on a project to rehabilitate the Tappan Zee Bridge in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York. Jay’s client chartered a barge as a floating work platform and entered into a subcontract agreement with a tug operator, whose tug was used to ferry electricians to the work site. Jay’s client’s employee, a barge deckhand, fell into the river after an impact between a tug and the barge. After jointly settling with the employee, the subcontractor and Jay’s client sought indemnification from one another. Jay prevailed by establishing that the tug was registered with the US Coast Guard under a defunct entity, was operated by an unlicensed captain, and the subcontractor breached its duty of care by failing to exercise ordinary care, caution and maritime skills in the operation of the tug. Additionally, the court accepted Jay’s argument that the subcontractor’s destruction of the captain’s logbook after anticipation of litigation constituted spoliation, warranting an adverse inference that evidence contained within the logbook would have been unfavorable to the subcontractor. The court rendered a verdict in Jay’s client’s favor, dismissing the subcontractor’s cross claims and ordering the subcontractor to pay $70,000, representing the amount our client paid in excess of its percentage of fault. Jay’s client was also awarded defense costs and attorneys' fees totaling in excess of $200,000.
  • Obtained a unanimous defense verdict on all counts after a five-week medical malpractice trial on behalf of a cardiothoracic surgeon. The suit against the surgeon and co-defendants alleged deviations from the standard of care relating to the diagnosis, management and treatment of a post catheterization femoral bleed, resulting in permanent disability, nerve damage, pain and atrophy. During cross examination of the plaintiff's surgery and cardiology experts, the defense elicited testimony directly contradicting their respective reports and deposition/trial testimony. After 43 minutes of deliberations, the jury returned a unanimous defense verdict on all counts (7-0).
  • Served as lead trial counsel in a medical malpractice matter in which the plaintiff alleged multiple deviations from the standard of care against a defendant surgeon. The alleged deviations included a failure to obtain and review records from an earlier procedure prior to subjecting the patient to the same surgery several years later and a failure to order the recognized standard testing (ERCP, MRCP) prior to undertaking the second procedure. Within minutes of the commencement of deliberations, the jury returned a unanimous defense verdict (8-0).
  • Obtained summary judgment on behalf of our client in a product defect and breach of warranty matter. Plaintiff instituted suit against our client, Vessel Engine Manufacturer, in Federal Court, Eastern District of New York, alleging product defects, breach of warranty and violation of the Magnuson-Moss Act in connection with the rebuild of vessel engines. During discovery we were able to obtain testimony demonstrating that the plaintiff’s actions resulted in the limitation of our experts’ ability to inspect the engines in an unaltered condition. We moved for summary judgment on the basis that all of plaintiff’s claim necessitated expert testimony regarding specific alleged failures of the engine parts which could not be challenged by our experts since the parts were not adequately preserved. After a prolonged oral argument, plaintiffs’ claims against our client were dismissed.
  • Obtained a defense verdict after a 3.5 week medical malpractice trial. Jay defended an attending physician accused by plaintiff of failing to properly monitor, diagnose and timely treat compartment syndrome resulting in multiple surgeries, nerve damage, pain, atrophy and disability. The Essex County jury returned a defense verdict (6-1).
  • Obtained summary judgment dismissing all claims in a marine construction NY Labor Law case pending in Supreme Court Rockland County.
  • Obtained decision from Office of the Attorney General and the Board of Medical Examiners which denied a patient's request to institute disciplinary action against the client, a physician and partner of a large practice group.
  • Served as lead counsel in a binding arbitration proceeding of a commercial contract litigation in which the plaintiff, a regional construction firm, alleged that our client, a manufacturer of industrial chemicals, should be liable for losses stemming from the theft of industrial equipment that was purchased from and stored by our client.
  • Served as lead trial counsel and obtained payment for his client, small medical practice group, from a statewide property developer who refused to abide by the terms of an agreement with his client.
  • Obtained summary judgment dismissing all claims against our client in a marine construction NY Labor Law case pending in Supreme Court Rockland County. The case involved bodily injuries sustained to an employee of our client which was a sub-subcontractor at the site of the new Mario Cuomo Bridge. The property owner, general contractor and the subcontractor each cross-claimed and/or third-partied our client into the case seeking contractual and common law indemnity and contribution pursuant to the terms and conditions of the various contracts. We argued and the Court agreed, since there was no finding of negligence against our client causing the injuries sustained to plaintiff, the indemnification clauses were not implicated. The Court found that there was no evidence demonstrated that our client caused in whole or in part the injuries plaintiff sustained. The plaintiff and general contractor made motions to reargue which were both denied. The parties also filed appeals which are currently pending in the Appellate Division.

Presentations and publications

  • “Strange New World - Economic Loss in Marine Cargo Claims,” ILG 360º London Annual Conference 2023 (March 2023)
  • “Maritime Construction Accidents – To Longshore or To Labor Law THAT is the Question,” In-House Client Training (February 2018)
  • “Battle Between State and Federal Law in Admiralty & Maritime Cases – And Impact on Marine Insurance,” In-House Client Training (February 2018)
  • “Effectively Managing Maritime Litigation Issues,” In-House Client Training (February 2018)

Report decisions

  • Reported opinion by the New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431: United Tit. Agency, LLC v Surfside-3 Mar., Inc. 2008 NY Slip Op 52248(U) [21 Misc 3d 1127(A)]
  • Dann Marine v. General Ship Repair 2014 AMC 2372
  • Jose Ayala v. Hughes Bros. Inc. et al 2015 AMC 2808; and 2016 AMC 2372
  • Paul Gaines vs. Silverton Marine Corporation et. al. 2015 AMC 2857

Services

Sectors