Ian Mark Sirota

Ian Mark Sirota

Office:Mount Laurel, NJ
Phone:(856) 727-6026

Ian Mark Sirota represents defendants in various forms of complex tort and personal injury litigation, including severe motor vehicle accidents, products liability actions, age and employment discrimination cases, and defense of employers in “intentional wrong” causes of actions. He has also handled insurance coverage matters and has briefed and argued cases before the Appellate Division and New Jersey Supreme Court, and the United States Courts of Appeals (3rd Circuit).

In addition to personal injury litigation, Ian has served as the Vice-President in charge of insurance for Inscatech, a food safety and service company, and has acted as counsel for property owners in landlord/tenant actions. He has also served as a court-appointed arbitrator in Burlington, Camden, and Gloucester Counties in New Jersey.


  • University of Miami (J.D.)
  • McGill University (M.A., History)
  • McGill University (B.A., Honors History)
  • Marianopolis College (D.E.C.)

Bar Admissions:

  • Pennsylvania
  • New Jersey

Court Admissions:

  • U.S. District Court of New Jersey
  • U.S. District Court of Pennsylvania
  • U.S. Bankruptcy Court
  • U.S. Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
  • U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida
  • U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida

Professional Affiliations:

  • Camden County Bar Association
  • Volusia County Bar Association
  • Florida Defense Lawyers Association

Representative Matters:

  • Tomeo v. Thomas Whitesell Construction Company - This precedential case from the New Jersey Supreme Court involved a claim by plaintiff Joseph Tomeo that his employer, the defendant Thomas Whitesell Construction Company, had deliberately disabled the "deadman switch" on a snowblower which plaintiff was using after a major snowfall in early 1996, thereby causing the plaintiff to sustain injuries. After plaintiff prevailed at the trial court level. Mr. Sirota filed an appeal, arguing that the trial court should have dismissed plaintiff's case by either summary judgment or by way of a directed verdict, as plaintiff had not produced any evidence which demonstrated that the defendant had made an injury such as that suffered by the plaintiff to be "substantially or virtually certain". In an unreported decision, the Appellate Division in New Jersey agreed completely with Mr. Sirota, and it therefore entered summary judgment in favor of the defendant. The plaintiff then appealed to the New Jersey Supreme Court, and relying again on the briefs submitted to it, it affirmed the Appellate Division's decision.
  • Lebegern v. Forman - This highly complex case involved a claim by the plaintiff that Pennsylvania's Wrongful Death Act should be applied to an accident involving a New Jersey defendant and a Pennsylvania plaintiff, even though the accident occurred in New Jersey. At the trial level court level, Mr. Sirota successfully argued that New Jersey had a greater interest in seeing its Wrongful Death Act (which is much more favorable to defendants in terms of the potential damages that a plaintiff can receive) applied to the facts of the case. The issue then reached the highly influential Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which agreed with Mr. Sirota's arguments and affirmed the decision of the trial court.
  • Cole v. Laughrey Funeral Home - This unusual case involved the issue of whether the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act could be applied to a funeral home. At the trial court level, Mr. Sirota successfully argued that it should not. Plaintiff then appealed and in a reported decision, the Appellate Division agreed with the holding of the court below.
  • Torres v. Lucca's Bakery - Plaintiff was an employee of the defendant, Lucca's Bakery, which was represented by Margolis Edelstein. Plaintiff contended that the way Lucca's Bakery did business made an injury such as his substantially or virtually certain. After extensive discovery, the various defendants in the case, including Lucca's Bakery, moved for summary judgment, with Mr. Sirota's motion on behalf of Lucca's Bakery arguing that plaintiff had failed failed to produce any evidence that an injury such as that suffered by the plaintiff, Roberto Torres, was substantially or virtually certain. In a reported opinion, the trial court agreed and dismissed with prejudice the claims against Lucca's Bakery.