Lawrence W. Rosenblatt, Partner

Lawrence W. Rosenblatt is a graduate of Brooklyn Law School. Prior to entering law school, he worked for several Fortune 500 retailers in management and operations.

Lawrence manages complex medical malpractice and civil litigation matters with multi-million-dollar exposures from inception through trial, focusing on obtaining excellent results in a cost-effective manner. Lawrence has obtained numerous defense and directed verdicts, as well as dismissals on summary judgment and Frye motions, for his clients throughout New York. He is a member of the firm’s Executive and Marketing Committees.

Admitted to all New York State courts and the Federal courts of New York, Eastern and Southern Districts, Lawrence also manages complex litigation matters in New Jersey.

Lawrence is an invited member of the prestigious Claims & Litigation Management Alliance (CLM). Selected attorneys and law firms are extended membership by invitation only based on nominations from CLM Fellows. Lawrence has served as CLM’s Chair of its National Medical Malpractice Sub-Committee and has been a panel speaker at national and regional conferences on the subjects of defense strategies employed in high exposure medical malpractice matters as well as in Frye and Daubert motion practice. Lawrence is a former member of the New York City Bar Association’s Medical Malpractice Committee and has achieved a peer-reviewed AV-rating by Martindale-Hubbell.  He is annually nominated for inclusion in such organizations as New York -Metro Super Lawyers, Best Lawyers in America, and Top 100 Civil Defense Litigators in multiple practice areas.

Practice areas include civil litigation, including professional negligence, general liability, premises, construction, auto and employment law, with an emphasis on high-exposure medical malpractice, catastrophic injury and general liability matters in the greater New York and New Jersey areas.

Representative Verdicts/Summary Judgment Results:

  • Dutchess County – Defense Verdict for a regional health network and its cardiovascular practice in a medical malpractice action, where it was claimed that negligent supervision and positioning during cardiac scanning resulted in injury to the 50-year-old male patient’s shoulder, resulting in numerous operations and ultimately reverse shoulder replacement with permanent disability to his dominant arm.
  • Kings County – Directed Verdict for a urologist in a medical malpractice/wrongful death action involving allegations of following to prevent, timely recognize and treat a systemic infection following elective prostate biopsy that resulted in death within a week of the biopsy.
  • Queens County – Defense Verdict for an emergency medicine physician and Long Island hospital in a medical malpractice/wrongful death action involving claims of failing to timely diagnose and treat a pulmonary embolism resulting in death.  Notably, the jury unanimously (6-0) found Mr. Rosenblatt’s clients not liable on all six departure questions that the Court allowed the jury to consider.
  • Kings County – Directed Verdict for a Brooklyn hospital in a medical malpractice/wrongful death action involving claims of a retained foreign object following surgery alleged to have resulted in the patient’s death.
  • Kings County – Defense Verdict in medical malpractice/wrongful death action, where it was claimed that the defendant endoscopist failed to properly monitor and appreciate worsening vital signs, leading to the arrest and death of a patient in his 50s, during an elective colonoscopy.
  • Kings County – Defense Verdict for a vascular surgeon in a medical malpractice action, where it was alleged, the plaintiff suffered permanent neurologic injury.  Following closing arguments, the jury found for Mr. Rosenblatt’s client, returning a defense verdict in under 15 minutes.
  • Richmond County – Defense Verdict for an infectious disease consultant in a medical malpractice action, where it was alleged, the physician did not properly treat an infection, leading to permanent disability in one of the patient’s legs.
  • Dutchess County – Directed Verdict for a hospital in a medical malpractice action, where it was claimed that the hospital was vicariously liable for the actions of the co-defendant surgeon.  Mr. Rosenblatt successfully argued at the close of evidence that the plaintiff did not elicit sufficient evidence during trial to allow the claim to be considered by the jury and the Court agreed.
  • Kings County – Summary Judgment for a Brooklyn hospital in a bed sore case where it was alleged that the development of multiple bed sores lead to osteomyelitis and death. During oral argument, the focus was on the deficiencies in the plaintiff’s expert’s affirmation, arguing that the expert’s opinions did not properly provide causal connection – to either conscious pain and suffering or death-  to the solitary stage two ulcer that developed at the hospital .  Plaintiff was compelled to concede that their expert grouped all of the ulcers sustained by the decedent – including stage three and four ulcers that developed at co-defendant institutions – in forming expert opinions.
  • Queens County – Summary Judgment leading to dismissal for two neurosurgeons involving claims surrounding the performance of emergent neurosurgical treatment.  It was claimed that these defendants improperly utilized lysing agents during emergent surgical intervention on a patient who stroked during an aneurysm surgery.  The plaintiff further alleged that, as a result, the patient suffered a brain bleed, became neurologically compromised and untimely expired years later from this condition.  We obtained a leading expert in the field to proffer an affidavit in support of the motion, compelling plaintiff’s counsel to discontinue the case against the two neurosurgeons.
  • Kings County – Summary Judgment for an internist, where it was alleged that there was a failure to timely diagnose and treat prostate cancer, leading to metastasis and shortened life expectancy.  We demonstrated in our motion that 1) not the internist comported within good and accepted care, 2)  there was no actual proof of metastatic disease given the plaintiff’s refusal to undergo biopsy, and that the plaintiff’s life expectancy was not statistically shortened given the number of years since treatment was concluded with no recurrence and, 3) that the plaintiff’s expert’s arguments were conclusory – an argument adopted by the court in it’s decision dismissing the case as to not only the ARFD client, but the co-defendant as well.
  • Bronx County – Summary Judgment in a dental malpractice case, arguing that plaintiff’s expert affidavit was conclusory on its face and did not adequately refute the opinions offered by the defendant’s expert.