On Wednesday, February 18, 2026, Foran Glennon shareholder Nicholas Marino obtained a unanimous defense verdict in a third‑party property damage action in New York County following a jury trial that began on Monday. February 9, 2026. The plaintiff, a major telecommunications company, alleged that the Firm’s general contractor client damaged their underground equipment in 2019 while performing roadway and sidewalk rehabilitation.
The case arose from damage to the telecom company’s underground equipment on a street where the contractor had been exclusively, continuously operating, uninterrupted in the 18 months prior to the damage. There was no dispute that:
- The equipment was damaged
- Foran Glennon’s client had been working nearby
- No other entity had a permit to perform work in the area during that period
The plaintiff relied on a series of notifications called in by our client regarding work on the block in question, including one submitted a week prior to the date of the loss. On the date of the loss, the telecom company dispatched a repair crew that verified the damage and photographed the contractor’s van—but not a work crew—on the same block.
With our client as the only authorized contractor working, the contemporaneous damage, and the photographs of the contractor’s truck nearby, the telecom company presented a strong circumstantial case. The evidentiary blind spot was the absence of an eyewitness. Furthermore, they failed to notify the contractor of the damage until one month after the incident, when they mailed a bill with no explanation.
Relying upon witnesses that performed post-loss investigation, the telecom company proceeded with their circumstantial theory and asked the jury, “who else could have done it?”
From the outset of jury selection, Nicholas emphasized that access, permission, and “possibilities” do not constitute proof of wrongdoing. With no contractor witness with personal knowledge to call, the defense case was also circumstantial, but he relied on:
- The client’s documents, which reflected that the contractor was working two blocks away from the damaged equipment on the date of loss.
- The favorable burden of proof, resting with plaintiff, which required that they establish not only that the contractor worked nearby, but also that they had indeed damaged their equipment.
Although the telecom company benefitted from New York’s strict liability standard for excavation, this advantage was ultimately not enough.
During the final summation, Nicholas criticized the plaintiff for:
- Orchestrating an insufficient investigation,
- Failing to promptly notify the contractor of the damages, and
- Their inability to rule out damage caused by other contractors.
The jury agreed and returned a unanimous defense verdict in just 20 minutes.
Nicholas Marino concentrates his practice on civil litigation, with significant experience defending landlords and contractors in New York Labor Law, premises liability, environmental exposure, negligent security, and motor vehicle matters.