Jon Crain -

Attorney Biography

Jon E. Crain

Areas of Practice:
  • Email
  • Phone Number 518-487-7672
  • Fax Number 518-487-7777
  • V-Card Download V-Card

Attorney Biography

Jon E. Crain


Jon Crain is a litigator in the Firm’s Litigation, Arbitration and Mediation Practice Group.  Jon has successfully litigated and arbitrated a broad range of commercial matters, including corporate shareholder disputes, disputes regarding trade secrets and proprietary business information, disputes concerning commercial real estate and construction, business-to-business collection and breach of contract claims, and complex personal injury and products liability actions.  Jon also has successfully litigated numerous administrative proceedings on behalf of both corporate and individual clients, including land use, zoning and commercial development litigation.   

Jon joined Whiteman Osterman & Hanna LLP in September 2013.  Prior to joining the firm, he served as an Appellate Court Attorney for the New York State Supreme Court Appellate Division, Third Department.  Jon received his Juris Doctor, magna cum laude, from Pace University School of Law in 2012, where he served as the Editor-in-Chief of the Pace Law Review.  Jon also has a degree in International Relations from Virginia Tech.

Representative Accomplishments
  • Commenced a lawsuit and obtained a favorable settlement and re-negotiation of a commercial lease on behalf of a Fortune 500 company and nation-wide retail chain.
  • Obtained a favorable settlement, in arbitration before the American Arbitration Association, of a multi-million-dollar dispute concerning the stock redemption and deferred compensation owed to two retiring surgeon-shareholders.
  • Obtained a reversal from the Appellate Division, Third Department in a complex, dispute involving multiple lawsuits and regarding ownership of several parcels of commercial real estate.  The Appellate Division adopted Jon’s novel argument and, for the first time in reported New York case law, held that the doctrine of collateral estoppel (issue preclusion) should have precluded our client’s adversary from raising the defense of res judicata (claim preclusion).
  • Commenced an arbitration proceeding before the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) against a major national banking institution in a dispute concerning securities fraud, and obtained a favorable settlement on our client’s behalf.
  • Obtained a judgment at trial in excess of $500,000, in a breach of contract dispute between a high-end manufacturer and distributor.
  • Obtained a reversal from the Appellate Division, Third Department, of an administrative determination by the State of New York, which deemed music teachers referred through a large online service to be employees of that online service for purposes of unemployment compensation payments. On appeal, the Appellate Division found that the teachers were independent contractors and that the State did not have the authority to assess hundreds of thousands of dollars in retroactive unemployment insurance payments against our client.
  • Part of a litigation team that obtained dismissal of a federal lawsuit and a favorable settlement for a large native American nation in a dispute with a major energy provider regarding the operation of natural gas pipelines on the clients’ sovereign territories.

Jon has also performed pro bono work, including first-chairing a prisoner civil rights lawsuit in federal court, arguing appeals of inmate disciplinary determinations before the Appellate Division, Third Department, and volunteering with the Legal Aid Society of Northeastern New York’s (LASNNY) attorney-for-the-day program, which provides in-court assistance to low-income tenants facing eviction.  Jon was featured in the 2018 Winter Issue of the New York State Bar Associate Pro Bono News for his work with this program (


Jon is admitted to practice in New York and New Jersey and is an active member of the Albany County Bar Association where he co-chairs the CLE Committee, and the New York State Bar Association.


Scope of Liability under the Alien Tort Statute: The Relevance of Choice of Law Doctrine in the Aftermath of Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum, 32 PACE L. REV. 543 (2012).

Search Our Practice Areas

— OR —