Jake Gash is a skilled litigator whose practice currently focuses on Construction and Products Liability cases. He also has extensive experience handling Medical Malpractice, Commercial transactions, and Labor law cases.

Prior to joining London Fischer, Jake worked at a national insurance defense firm where he managed all aspects of a substantial caseload of complex, high-value medical malpractice actions on behalf of institutional, municipal and individual defendants. Before that, he worked for two other New York law firms.

Jake earned his J.D. from Pace University School of Law and holds a B.A. in Economics and Political Science from Indiana University, Bloomington.

Outside of his legal pursuits, Jake immerses himself in a world of physical activity and adventure, either gliding across the tennis court or shushing down a ski slope.

Representative Cases

  • Digerolamo v. LiRo Constructors, Inc. In this Labor Law action, Plaintiff, a union carpenter, alleged that he sustained bilateral knee injuries after tripping on an unidentified material while securing cement boards under an elevated house damaged because of Hurricane Sandy. Plaintiff moved for summary judgment on Labor Law 241(6) and Labor 200, arguing that LiRo violated various sections of the industrial code. Defendants cross-moved, arguing that the Plaintiff failed to identify the mechanism of his injury; that the materials he alleged having tripped over were integral to the work; that LiRo did not control the means and methods of Plaintiff’s work; and that the condition of which Plaintiff complained were not inherently dangerous. The Court denied the motions for summary judgment.
  • 190 North 14th Street v. False Alarm Ltd. In this adjacent property damage case, Plaintiff moved pre-discovery for summary judgment, arguing that defendants damaged Plaintiff’s building during demolition by jackhammering directly into its side, causing extensive structural damage. Our investigation found an engineering report requested by the Plaintiff’s insurer prior to the lawsuit’s commencement, which determined the alleged damage was pre-existing and the result of uneven foundation settlement. We subpoenaed the engineer for a deposition and used his transcript and report to oppose Plaintiff’s motion. The court eventually denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.