Ian L. Glick

Ian is a member of the Casualty Department where he handles cases from inception through resolution involving New York State Labor Law, construction accidents, premises liability, products liability, auto liability, general liability and subrogation claims.

Prior to joining Marshall Dennehey, Ian worked for insurance defense firms where he represented clients throughout the New York Metropolitan area in the defense of medical malpractice, professional malpractice and general liability actions. During his career, Ian has represented various clients including religious institutions, airlines, commercial cleaning companies, hospitals, nursing and rehabilitation facilities, doctors, dentists, and attorneys. Ian has successfully argued summary judgment motions in New York Supreme Court, in Bronx, Kings and Dutchess counties.

Ian graduated with a Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of Wisconsin - Madison and a juris doctor from St. John’s University School of Law. Ian is admitted to practice in New York and New Jersey, the United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, and the Second Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals.

Results

Notable Victory Obtained in a New York Labor Law Action

We obtained a significant win in a New York Labor Law action, securing partial summary judgment for a municipal library and defeating the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on liability. The plaintiff alleged negligence and violations of Labor Law 200, 240 and 241(6) after sustaining injuries when roof trusses collapsed on a construction project managed by a co-defendant on property owned by the municipal library. He claimed the collapse resulted from inadequate bracing. Following discovery, the plaintiff sought summary judgment under Labor Law 240, asserting absolute liability against the library as the property owner. We opposed the motion and sought partial summary judgment dismissing all claims against the non-property-owning clients, all but the 240 claim against the library, dismissal of the co-defendant’s cross-claims, and contractual and common law indemnification from the plaintiff’s employer. The court denied the plaintiff’s motion after finding questions of fact as to whether the plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of the accident. The court also granted our motion, dismissing all claims against the non-property-owning clients, all but the 240 claim against the library, dismissing the co-defendant’s cross-claims, and granting the library unconditional contractual indemnification from the plaintiff’s employer prior to any finding of liability.

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Shareholder Class and Special Counsel Promotions

December 15, 2025