Sara W. Mazzolla

As a shareholder in our Casualty Department and co-chair of the Amusement, Sports and Recreation Practice, Sara actively defends matters involving premises liability, amusements, sports and recreation, construction, automobile, and condominium/community association law. Sara also defends professional liability claims involving sports coaches and real estate professionals. Sara frequently provides seminars to NAFDMA, IAAPA, SERMA and RSA as well as to carriers and claims professionals.

In her career, Sara has defended Fortune 500 retailers, restaurant businesses, and major hospital networks in New Jersey premises liability actions. Sara routinely represents sports facilities, World and Olympic coaches, athletes, sports teams, and contractors in a wide array of matters.

Through her extensive background in the sport of figure skating, Sara provides a unique perspective to the defense of her sports-related clients. Sara is known for her dedication and consistency in achieving successful results for her clients. She is a former U.S. International Figure Skating Team Competitor, two-time U.S. National Figure Skating Championship Medalist (including winning a National Championship) and World Junior Team Member. Attributing many of her good qualities to her high level and successful participation in sports, Sara enjoys being a role model to young athletes and working with athletes to achieve their goals.

Sara received her juris doctor from Seton Hall University School of Law, where she defended juveniles through her work with the Seton Hall Law, Center for Social Justice, Juvenile Justice Law Clinic. During her time at Seton Hall Law, Sara externed for Judge Edwin H. Stern (on temporary assignment with the New Jersey Supreme Court) and Justice Virginia Long, and drafted memoranda on petitions for certification.

In conjunction with a pro bono organization, Partners for Women and Justice, Sara has successfully represented domestic violence victims in obtaining final restraining orders in New Jersey family court.

Sara is licensed to practice in New Jersey and New York.

Honors & Awards

•New Jersey Super Lawyers Rising Star (2021-2022)
The Super Lawyers list is issued by Thomson Reuters. A description of the selection methodology can be found here . No aspect of this advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Classes & Seminars Taught

•Safety and Legal Prep, NAFDMA International Agritourism Association Convention & Expo, February 8, 2026
•I’m Getting Sued. Now What? NAFDMA International Agritourism Association Convention & Expo, February 9, 2026
•Risk Management and Understanding the Claims Process, NAFDMA International Agritourism Association Convention & Expo, February 10, 2025
•Health Club Claims, Marshall Dennehey Client Webinar, February 5, 2025
•Preparing A Claim for Trial, Marshall Dennehey Client Webinar, February 4, 2025
•Roller Skating and Ice-Skating Management, SERMA, Webinar, December 17, 2024
•Risk Management, Risk Shifting, & Corporate Formalities, NAFDMA International Agritourism Association, Webinar, July 11, 2024
•Annual Anti-Discrimination and Harassment Training, Marshall Dennehey Client Webinar, May 18, 2023

Published Works

•“Negotiating The Call: What the Americans with Disabilities Act May Demonstrate as Trends in Finding the Line Between Equal Participation and Safety”, The Sports Bulletin 3rd Edition, Insurance Law Global, August 2024
•It’s Only Fun Until Someone Gets Hurt: Emerging Risks in Amusements, Sports and Entertainment, AM Best Insurance Law Podcast, October 2021

Pro Bono

•Partners For Women In Justice

Results

Summary Judgment Won in a Dog Bite Case in New Jersey

We secured summary judgment in a general liability case involving a dog bite. The plaintiff alleged a laceration to the face from a dog bite. The dog was owned by a co-defendant, not by our client, the landlord of the property where the bite occurred. There were no issues of material fact or proof to support a theory of liability under strict or ordinary negligence, and no behavioral signs of aggression were observed by the plaintiff or the property owner’s son who hosted the party where the plaintiff was bitten. We argued that the elements under both theories could not be met, and the judge agreed, granting summary judgment.

Summary Judgment for National Concert Promoter

We obtained summary judgment for a national concert promoter and public entity venue owner. The plaintiff purchased outdoor lawn seats for a concert at the PNC Bank Arts Center in Holmdel, New Jersey. After the show started, it began to rain, and the plaintiff alleged the lawn area became slippery, wet and muddy. The plaintiff attempted to walk down the sloped lawn toward the stage to buy her husband a beer. While doing so, her foot got stuck in mud which formed with the rain, and she suffered a severe ankle fracture that was surgically repaired. The trial judge dismissed the case on summary judgment and found the plaintiff’s expert’s report to be unsupported. The court reasoned the plaintiff could not present a claim of liability against the operator for failing to prevent the outdoor grassed seating area from becoming wet and slippery when it rained. He also reasoned the plaintiff could not prove the property was in a dangerous condition as defined by the New Jersey Tort Claims Act.

Thought Leadership

Case Law Alerts

New Jersey Appellate Division Affirms Dismissal of Slip-and-Fall Suit at Concert Venue

July 1, 2025

The plaintiff claimed she was injured when she slipped and fell on a wet floor at a concert at the Prudential Center. The defendants argued there was no actual or constructive notice of a spill and, therefore, they breached no duty owed to the plaintiff. The defendants presented uncontroverted evidence of inspection patrols of the area. The plaintiff argued that the defendants had directed her to her seat and had permitted open containers. However, the plaintiff presented no evidence of how long the liquid had been on the floor or its source; therefore, she was unable to establish her theories of liability under basic negligence and mode of operations. The mode of operations did not apply simply because there were open containers handed to customers. In this case, there was no self-service component established by the plaintiff. In its de novo review, the New Jersey Appellate Division confirmed that the trial court’s ruling was correct and there was “no evidence of a liquid, where it came from, and if it was ever there, how long it had been on the floor.” The appellate panel’s decision summarily dismissed the plaintiff’s negligence claims as to the janitorial entities at the arena. Case Law Alerts, 3rd Quarter, July 2025 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright 2025 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.

Case Law Alerts

New Jersey Court Dismisses Baseball Team’s Fiduciary Duty Claim Against Board Member, Citing Lack of Individual Liability Under Florida Law

April 1, 2025

The New Jersey District Court dismissed the plaintiff’s breach of fiduciary duty claim, applying Florida law to determine that no cause of action existed against an individual board member of a not-for-profit entity.In this suit brought by a minor league baseball team, the Volcanoes, the court dismissed the plaintiff’s second amended complaint, which alleged a single claim for breach of fiduciary duty against an individual defendant, Goldklang, a member of the Board of Trustees. While the suit arose out of the allegedly undermined negotiations impacting various entities in minor league baseball, the New Jersey District Court determined that a Rule 12(b)(6)-failure to state a claim-dismissal was appropriate when it applied Florida law to determine that there was no cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty against the individual board member. The statute imposed only a limited duty on a not-for-profit entity (the corporation). The court determined there was no support for the allegation that “the directors of a not-for-profit corporation owe their members-rather than the corporation-fiduciary duties,” and dismissed the action against the individual board member. Case Law Alerts, 2nd Quarter, April 2025 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright 2024 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.

Events

Conference

RISKWORLD 2026

May 3-6, 2026

Philadelphia, PA

Sara W. Mazzolla and Francis X. Wickersham