Ingram Yuzek Gainen Carroll & Bertolotti, LLP
John G. Nicolich
T: 212-907-9685
F: 212-907-9681
Practice Areas
Commercial Litigation

John joined the firm in 2011 as a partner. After graduating from Cornell Law School in 1980, John began his career at Shea & Gould. John became a partner at Shea & Gould in 1989, and subsequently was a partner at LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene & MacRae, LLP and Dewey & LeBoeuf, LLP.

John has had an active litigation practice, representing both plaintiffs and defendants in a broad range of commercial disputes. A number of companies in the energy industry have been John's clients in litigations, arbitrations, and mediations arising from merger and acquisition agreements, power purchase and fuel supply agreements, construction projects, and real property tax assessments. John also has represented a variety of clients in the prosecution or defense of claims for fraud, breach of contract, and breach of fiduciary duty. During the course of his career, John also has litigated issues of lawyer ethics and professional responsibility, and he has given a number of presentations on these topics for Continuing Legal Education courses.

Representative Matters
  • Representation of limited partner in connection with arbitration of real estate partnership dispute.  N.J.R. Associates v. Tausend, 19 N.Y.3d 597 (New York Court of Appeals 2012).
  • Representation of telecommunication company challenging real property tax assessments on fiber-optic cables and equipment.  Matter of RCN N.Y. Communications, LLC v. Tax Commission of City of New York, 95 A.D.3d 456 (NY 1st Dep't 2012).
  • Represented an energy company in several litigations and mediations arising from the acquisition of electric generating stations, including the defense of shareholder and breach of contract claims and representation of the client as a claimant in bankruptcy proceedings.
  • Represented sellers of an insurance business in connection with claims and counterclaims for breach of contract and indemnification arising under a stock purchase agreement.
  • Represented an investor in litigations alleging claims of fraud and breach of fiduciary duty related to investments in a Singapore telecom company. Freeford Ltd. v. Pendleton, 53 A.D.3d 32 (NY 1st Dep't 2008).
  • Represented several power plant owners in a number of proceedings challenging real property tax assessments against nuclear, coal, and hydroelectric generating stations; a judgment following trial saved one client more than $350 million in taxes assessed against the Susquehanna Nuclear Power Station. In re PPL, Inc., 838 A.2d 1 (Pa. Commw. 2003).
  • Represented a utility company in two lengthy trials challenging real property tax assessments against the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, resulting in a judgment that exceeded $1 billion in favor of the utility. Matter of Long Island Lighting Co. v. Assessor, 202 A.D.2d 32 (NY 2d Dep't 1994) and Matter of Long Island Lighting Co. v. Assessor, 246 AD.2d 156 (NY 2d Dep't 1998).
  • Represented power plant owners in several litigations concerning the construction of electric generating stations, including the successful defense of allegations that a law firm was representing conflicting interests. Brooklyn Navy Yard Cogeneration Partners, L.P. v. PMNC, 174 Misc. 2d 216 (NY Supreme Court, Kings Co. 1997), aff'd, 254 A.D.2d 447 (NY 2d Dep't 1998), and Brooklyn Navy Yard Cogeneration Partners, L.P. v. Superior Court, 60 Cal. App. 4th 248 (CA Court of Appeal 1997).
  • Represented a client in a mandamus proceeding successfully challenging a federal judge's ruling that documents were not protected by the attorney-client privilege. In re Long Island Lighting Co., 129 F.3d 268 (2d Cir. 1997).
  • Represented defendants in a RICO Act class action that included two-month jury trial. County of Suffolk v. Long Island Lighting Co., 907 F.2d 1295 (2d Cir.1990). Federal judge Jack B. Weinstein praised defense counsel as having "tried this case as well as I have ever seen any case tried" (New York Law Journal, December 8, 1988, p. 2, col. 4).
  • Represented a regulated utility in litigations challenging legislation authorizing the proposed acquisition of the client by New York State and Suffolk County. Long Island Lighting Co. v. Cuomo, 666 F. Supp. 370 (N.D.N.Y. 1987), vacated, 888 F.2d 230 (2d Cir. 1989); Long Island Lighting Co. v. County of Suffolk, 119 A.D.2d 128 (NY 2d Dep't 1986).

United States Supreme Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
United States District Courts for the Southern, Eastern, and Northern Districts of New York
New York State Bar


J.D., Cornell Law School 1980
B.A., Cornell University 1974