Nicholas is a member of the Professional Liability Department where he focuses his practice on the defense of architects, engineers, owners, developers, general contractors, construction managers, subcontractors and design professionals. He assists with a wide range of construction industry related matters including construction and design defect matters, breach of contract, indemnity and coverage and construction code and safety violation claims.
Prior to joining Marshall Dennehey, Nicholas represented clients in a variety of matters including real estate matters where he coordinated with title insurance companies, buyers, sellers, agents, opposing counsel and mortgage lenders. He also has experience handling personal injury matters and a diverse caseload of municipality defense litigation matters involving state and federal civil rights cases including defamation, discrimination, retaliation, harassment, wrongful termination, false arrest, excessive force and whistleblower claims.
Nicholas previously served as a law clerk for the Honorable Vicki A. Citrino, J.S.C. in Paterson, New Jersey. During this time, among his many duties, Nicholas conducted legal research and prepared memoranda of law providing recommendation for final disposition on all motions before the Court each week.
A graduate of New York Law School, Nicholas was a member of the Dispute Resolution Team where he gained valuable negation, alternative dispute resolution and lawyering skills. He received his undergraduate degree from Saint Joseph’s University where he majored in Sports Marketing.
Nicholas is admitted to practice in New Jersey.
Thought Leadership
Case Law Alerts
Appellate Division Clarifies Scope of Indemnification Clauses in Construction Injury Litigation
April 1, 2026
This case involves a fall at a construction site in which a jury found the defendant, a general contractor, partially liable for the plaintiff’s injuries, awarding him and his wife damages. The defendant appealed the lower court’s determination that it was not entitled to contractual indemnification from the co-defendants, a steel company, for sums it was required to pay for not accepting plaintiffs’ offer of judgment.The general contractor subcontracted with the steel company to install steel rebar for the project. That agreement contained an indemnification provision. Upon initiation of the plaintiff’s lawsuit, the general contractor demanded that the steel company assume its defense, which they declined. Thereafter, the lower court ruled that the defendant general contractor was not entitled to indemnification. On appeal, they argued that the judge erred when he concluded it was not entitled to indemnification by the defendant steel company, arguing that the provision’s language required indemnification for “any and all...fines...penalties,...damages, liability, losses, costs and expenses, including...attorney’s fees,” which would include the offer of judgment penalties.The Appellate Court concluded that the lower court judge’s interpretation of the indemnification agreement as either not contemplating an offer of judgment or requiring the parties to draft a specific provision relating to the consequences of not accepting an offer of judgment, was in error. The court reversed that portion of the court’s April 5, 2024, order and remanded for entry of an order requiring the defendant steel company to indemnify the general contractor for the consequences of not accepting plaintiffs’ offer of judgment.
