Glen S. Feinberg
Glen S. Feinberg – Partner
Glen Feinberg joined Fullerton Beck after more than three decades as a litigation partner at an AmLaw 100 law firm. Glen is a full-service litigator and trial lawyer. He represents clients in many types of litigation, including employment discrimination, professional liability and commercial disputes.
The principle focus of Glen’s practice is the defense of individuals and institutions who are being sued by plaintiffs who claim severe emotional distress and psychiatric injury. Today, that means that Glen spends most of his time defending cases brought under New York’s Child Victims Act. He handles similar cases throughout the country, utilizing a network of local counsel as needed. Glen’s knowledge of neurobiology and cutting-edge psychotherapy techniques informs his innovative approach to the defense of these cases and has yielded impressive results.
Glen is a graduate of the University of Virginia School of Law. He began his legal career as an Assistant District Attorney under Robert Morgenthau in Manhattan.
RG v iD Tech: Glen developed information in civil discovery which proved that his client’s camp employee had been falsely accused and wrongfully convicted of sexual assault. The counselor’s conviction was overturned by the District of Columbia Superior Court and the case against Glen’s client was dismissed.
AB v Clarkstown Soccer: The United Stated District Court granted Glen’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the claims against his client, which employed a coach who was convicted of having an improper relationship with the plaintiff. The court held that Glen’s client was not negligent because it did not have notice of the coach’s propensity for such behavior.
Marmelstein v Kehillat New Hempstead: the New York State Court of Appeals held that Glen’s client, a rabbi, did not owe a fiduciary duty to a congregant who claimed he induced her into an improper relationship. It dismissed the case.
Jones v Archdiocese of New York: The court granted Glen’s motion for summary judgment, holding that plaintiff failed to prove that his client knew or should have known that a teacher had a propensity to engage in improper conduct with students.