Louis G. Adolfsen
Top rated Personal Injury attorney in New York, New YorkMelito & Adolfsen P.C.
Practice Areas: Personal Injury, General Litigation, Insurance Coverage; view more
Licensed in New York since: 1975
Education: Brooklyn Law School
Melito & Adolfsen P.C.233 Broadway
New York, NY 10279 Visit website
Louis G. Adolfsen, a founding member of Melito & Adolfsen P.C., practices law in New York, New York, and serves clients across the country as well as internationally. His areas of practice include insurance coverage, criminal defense, media and advertising, and general commercial litigation.
Before embarking on a successful law career, Mr. Adolfsen received a Bachelor of Arts cum laude at Stony Brook University i. He then went on to receive his J.D. from Brooklyn Law School with Honors. He began his by practicing law at a firm that focused on matters of tax representation of nonresident individuals and foreign corporations. Clients of the firm included Black Sabbath and the Rolling Stones (As a young man one year prepared their US tax returns). He founded his current firm at the beginning of the mass tort litigation explosion starting with America's most famous pollution site, Love Canal.
Admitted to practice law in both New York and the District of Columbia, Mr. Adolfsen is also admitted to practice before the U.S. District Courts for the Eastern, Northern and Southern Districts of New York. He is has also argued and is admitted to practice before the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 2nd, 5th, 11th, and the District of Columbia Circuit.
Always striving to improve upon his practice, Mr. Adolfsen is a member of multiple professional organizations, including the American Bar Association, the New York State Bar Association, and DRI. Widely recognized by his fellow attorneys for his superb ethics ( even his adversaries regard him as someone you can trust) and successful track record, he has earned an AV Preeminent* peer review rating through Martindale-Hubbell.
*AV®, AV Preeminent®, Martindale-Hubbell Distinguished and Martindale-Hubbell Notable are certification marks used under license in accordance with the Martindale-Hubbell certification procedures, standards and policies. Martindale-Hubbell® is the facilitator of a peer review rating process. Ratings reflect the anonymous opinions of members of the bar and the judiciary. Martindale-Hubbell® Peer Review Rating™ fall into two categories – legal ability and general ethical standards.
Practice areasPersonal Injury - General: Defense, General Litigation, Insurance Coverage, Criminal Defense, International, Media and Advertising
Communications and Media Law, Criminal Law, Defamation, Insurance, Litigation, Personal Injury - Defense, Personal Injury - Plaintiff
- 30% Personal Injury - General: Defense
- 20% General Litigation
- 20% Insurance Coverage
- 10% Criminal Defense
- 10% International
- 10% Media and Advertising
First Admitted: 1975, New York
Professional Webpage: http://www.melitoadolfsen.com/attorneys/louis-g-adolfsen/
- Settlements of of personal injury cases ranging from $100,000 to $100,000,000. Summary Judgments in Personal Injury Cases. Asylum grants. Plea bargins in criminal cases involving conspiracy.
- New York Metro Super Lawyers (Personal Injury - General)
- We handle all manner of pro bono matters on an individual basis
- The Hartford
- State University of New York at Stony Brook, B.A.
- New York State Bar Association
- District of Columbia
- United States District Courts for the Northern District of New York
- United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
- State of New York
- United States District Courts for the Eastern District of New York
- United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
- American Bar Association
- United States District Courts for the Southern District of New York
- United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
- United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
- Research Editor, Brooklyn Law Review, 1973-1974, Brooklyn Law School
- The defamation cases brought by Johnny Depp and Amber Heard against each other, entertaining as they were to many Americans, involved complex issues of law as applied to the facts alleged by the parties. For the jury to reach the verdicts it reached, the Trial Judge in Virginia required a special verdict sheet containing 43 questions. Special verdict sheets are based on the Model Jury Instructions used in civil cases in Virginia, see, e.g., Va. Model Jury Instruction, No. 37 000. Without the answer to the questions on the special verdict sheet, it would not have been possible for a court to uphold the verdicts. Without these answers, a court could not properly review the verdicts. As observed by the Virginia Supreme Court in another defamation case: The jury was thus permitted to find the last three statements to be defamatory; and in the absence here of a special verdict, there is no way to determine whether the jury based any or all of its defamation verdict on one or more of these last three statements. We therefore agree with Handberg that it was reversible error for the trial court to have so instructed the jury. Handberg v. Goldberg, 297 Va. 660, 671, 831 S.E.2d 700, 708 (2019)., author, Johnny Depp and Amber Heard Show the Importance of Special Verdicts or Answers to Written Questions in Jury Verdicts , Trial Attorneys, 2022
- Parties should be mindful of these distinctions. First, medical malpractice is a deviation from accepted standards of medical care. Second, negligence is a breach of the duty of care. Third, a cause of action under the New York Public Health Law requires showing that a defendant nursing home violated applicable federal and state regulations and deprived a resident of the rights granted thereunder. It is not necessary in the Public Health Law claim to show either medical malpractice or negligence-simply violating a statute is enough. These distinctions, while perhaps easy to plead, require careful analysis in every case where these three causes of action are alleged., Understanding What Needs to be Proved to Show Medical Malpractice, Negligence, or Violation of The Public Health Law in a Nursing Home Case, Nursing Hoes, Insurance, 2019
- Anyone who hires someone to do construction should ask the contractor to name them as an additional insured on the contractor's policy. The contractor may agree to provide the coverage but then may fail to follow the rules in the policy for providing additional insured coverage. You may not learn about the mistake until you are sued and find you are not covered., You May Think You Are Insured as an Additional Insured But You May Find You Are Not Covered, Real Estate, Insurance, , 2019
- Parties should be mindful of these distinctions. First, medical malpractice is a deviation from accepted standards of medical care. Second, negligence is a breach of the duty of care. Third, a cause of action under the New York Public Health Law requires showing that a defendant nursing home violated applicable federal and state regulations and deprived a resident of the rights granted thereunder. It is not necessary in the Public Health Law claim to show either medical malpractice or negligence-simply violating a statute is enough. These distinctions, while perhaps easy to plead, require careful analysis in every case where these three causes of action are alleged., Understanding What Needs to be Proved to Show Medical Malpractice, Negligence, or Violation of The Public Health Law in a Nursing Home Case , Insurance And Nursing Homes
- On May 13, 2015, The SPEAK FREE ACT of 2015, H.R. 2034, was introduced in the House of Representatives. The SPEAK FREE ACT is intended “to create a special motion to dismiss strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPP suits).” This Bill was introduced in Congress less than a month after the Court in Abbas v. Foreign Policy Grp., LLC, 783 F.3d 1328 (D.C. Cir. 2015), ruled that the D.C. Anti–SLAPP Act, a statute designed to make it more difficult (some would argue impossible) to go to trial against a powerful media defendant in a defamation case, cannot be applied in Federal Court. This decision was a significant blow to the powerful media interests in the U.S.—what could be called “Big Media.” Every major media defendant in the country (27 in all) banded together to file as amici curiae in support of the media defendants against Mr. Abbas’s position that he should be entitled to his day in court under the federal rules of civil procedure. The decision created a conflict in the Circuits that one would have expected Big Media to take to the Supreme Court. Instead, the Media, which we dub "Big Media," shifted its efforts to supporting The SPEAK FREE ACT hoping to accomplish through federal legislation what a Supreme Court decision could not—namely, giving it the same protections in every state in the Union that were intended for average Americans exercising their First Amendment rights. Big Media has important protections under the First Amendment and the many cases strengthening and broadening the scope of its protection. The values embodied in that protection and others in the Constitution are diminished by statutes that permit the pre-answer dismissal of defamation actions and the award of substantial attorneys’ fees against those who sue to assert their right to be protected against defamation. The U.S. federal courts have traditionally protected important rights that state courts sometimes were not able to protect., Proposed Federal Anti-SLAPP Legislation -- Is “Big” Media Trying to Repress the Rights of Everyone to Sue for Defamation by Seeking Nationwide Legislation that Purports to Protect Ordinary People but is really for Big Media?
- Article: Johnny Depp and Amber Heard Show the Importance of Special Verdicts or Answers to Written Questions in Jury Verdicts , 2022
- foreign corporations and non-resident aliens
- Health Care
- Nursing Homes
- real estate businesses
Office location for Louis G. Adolfsen
New York, NY 10279
- Super Lawyers: 2010, 2013 - 2023