260 Madison Avenue, 17th Floor, New York, New York 10016
Please note that while we are proud of our victories in court, we are equally proud of our litigation victories out of court. For example, there have been countless situations where both the facts and the law were clearly not in our client's favor; yet, through our diligence and creativity, we nonetheless negotiated a very beneficial settlement (including a number of recent brokerage commission cases). The compilation below also does not include the numerous mediations and arbitrations we have conducted on behalf of clients. (Mr. Blander has also recently served as an expert witness on real estate litigation in an arbitration.)
Moreover, please note further that we are not just listing the “wins.” Notwithstanding our excellent track record, no lawyer or firm can guarantee that you will prevail in litigation. Rather, the purpose of the compilation is to indicate our familiarity with and experience concerning varied subject matters and the quality of our work and representation (as reflected in our submissions to the court and our interaction with adversaries).
Cohen v. Berliner
2021 WL 860182, 2011 WL 1634668, 2021 WL 4203242 (Sup. Ct. Kings Cty. 2021)
Cohen v. Landau
2022 WL 2440238 (Sup. Ct. Kings Cty. 2022)
RB v. Bais Yaakov
Index No. 528307/2021 (Sup. Ct. Kings Cty. 2022)
In these cases, we represent one faction of a large Hasidic sect involved in an intra-sect dispute with another faction. The litigation raises a number of novel and important issues concerning, among other things, the applicability of the Religious Corporation Law, the “ecclesiastical” exception to the jurisdiction of secular courts, the First Amendment right of religious organizations and schools to operate free of state supervision and the enforceability of arbitration clauses contained in an organization’s foundational documents.
Finkelstein v. Finkelstein
203 A.D.3d 402 (1st Dept.), lv. to app. denied, 38 N.Y.3d 911 (2022)
This case concerned, among other things, the “probate exception” to arbitration and the circumstances under which an arbitration panel can render a clarified award after having previously rendered a final award.
Roldan v. NYCHA
171 A.D.3d 418 (1st Dept. 2019)
This appeal turned on the obligation of NYCHA to take safety precautions so as to prevent an assault committed against a resident.
New York Community Bank v. Bank of America
169 A.D.3d 35 (1st Dept.), lv. to app. denied, 33 N.Y.3d 908 (2019)
This appeal raised novel issues concerning the right of a spouse to claim ownership of items in her safety deposit box against the claims of a judgment creditor of the other spouse under Section 675 of the Banking Law.
Weinberg v. Picker
172 A.D.3d 384 (2d Dept. 2019)
This appeal addressed the applicability of res judicata to a small claims judgment in a subsequent action in the Supreme Court.
Ditech Financial LLC v. Reiss
175 A.D.3d 618 (2d Dept. 2019)
In this appeal, the Court addressed the statute of limitations for a foreclosure action after an acceleration notice had been sent by the mortgagee.
313 43rd Street Realty, LLC v. TMS Enterprises
163 A.D.3d 512 (2d Dept. 2018)
This is illustrative of the many cases that the firm litigates involving real estate transactions.
Schwartz v. Perlmutter
510913/2021 (Sup. Ct. Kings Cty.)
This case, involving the confirmation of a Beth Din Arbitration award, is an example of the firm’s extensive involvement in the enforcement or vacatur of rabbinical arbitration awards.
Hicks v. Becker
153105/2020 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty.)
This case involved a dispute over a significant deposit on a cooperative apartment arising from a contract during the Pandemic, where the firm represented the buyer. Among the issues was whether restrictions imposed by the Pause Order prevented the closing from proceeding. After obtaining summary judgment directing the return of the deposit, the case was settled on favorable terms.
HSBC v. Kozeny
651350/2018 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty.)
The firm has represented plaintiffs in a number of legal malpractice actions, of which this is an example. This case was settled on favorable terms following a mediation.
Fair Housing Justice Center v. ZP Realty, LLC
19 Civ. 04125 (E.D.N.Y.)
The firm represented a broker and owner of real property in a housing discrimination case filed by a fair housing organization. After a mediation with the court, the case was settled.
Barkany Asset Management, LLC v. Southwest Securities, Inc.
50 Misc.3d 1222(A) (Sup. Ct. Kings Cty. 2014)
We brought an action alleging misrepresentation and concealment by a securities broker concerning the assets of its customer, which induced our client to make loan to the customer. We defeated the broker’s motion to dismiss and the case was subsequently settled.
Shor v. Attorney General
Index No. 51564/2017 (Sup. Ct. Kings Cty.)
We represent members of a synagogue in Boro Park, and obtained a preliminary injunction preventing demolition of the historic synagogue building.
Alevy v. Uminer
139 A.D.3d 503 (1st Dept. 2016)
The Appellate Division affirmed a jury verdict in favor of our client on a claim for monies due under an independent contractor agreement.
Golden Technologies Management, LLC v. Nextgen Acquisition, Inc.
138 A.D.3d 625 (1st Dept. 2016)
We were retained by the defendants after the trial court denied their motion to dismiss a complaint asserting a multi-million dollar claim against them under an asset purchase agreement. We successfully convinced the Appellate Division to dismiss the entire complaint on statute of limitations grounds.
One PPW Residences, LLC v. Copper 1 PPW, LLC
2014 WL 7174297 (Sup. Ct. Kings Cty. 2014)
We represented the seller of a property utilized as an assisted living facility in Park Slope, Brooklyn, in litigation which turned on whether the purchaser may avoid its obligation to close based upon Department of Health regulatory issues. The case was subsequently settled.
Deutsch v. Grunwald
138 A.D.3d 915 (2d Dept. 2016)
The Appellate Division reversed the trial court order that had declined to cancel a notice of pendency against our client’s property, based upon our argument that the plaintiff had failed to diligently pursue the underlying lawsuit.
In re Schnall
154 A.D.3d 951 (2d Dept. 2017)
This appeal concerned whether a consent and waiver given in one proceeding is binding in a subsequent proceeding involving the same will, when the first proceeding has been dismissed.
Schweid v. Spahn
2017 WL 1092757 (Sup. Ct. Bronx Cty. 2017)
We obtained summary judgment in favor of our client for the recovery of its purchase price after the court determined that the seller did not have legal authority to transfer the property because of a restriction on sale in a partnership agreement and will.
Kimso Apartments, LLC v. Gandhi
24 N.Y.3d 403 (2014)
The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division's vacatur of a $ 2.2 million judgment rendered in our client's favor after trial, and held that the trial court correctly permitted a post-trial amendment to assert a counterclaim for that amount under CPLR 3025(a).
Oorah, Inc. v. Schick
552 Fed.Appx. 20 (2d Cir. 2014)
The Second Circuit affirmed a money judgment rendered in our client's favor after trial, rejecting numerous claimed evidentiary and other trial errors. The full amount of the judgment was subsequently collected.
Deutsch v. Grunwald
110 A.D.3d 949 (2d Dept. 2013)
We obtained a reversal of the trial court's striking of our client's answer, on the grounds that the plaintiff failed to comply with the "good faith" requirements of the Uniform Rules governing discovery disputes.
Martin v. Daily News LP
121 A.D.3d 90 (1st Dept. 2014) mot. for lv. to app denied, 24 N.Y.3d 908 (2014)
We represented a state supreme court justice in a defamation action against the Daily News. While the Appellate Division, in a lengthy opinion, affirmed the dismissal of the action because of the lack of "constitutional malice", the Court agreed with our argument that the trial court erred in concluding that the subject articles were not false and defamatory. The decision was featured in the New York Law Journal.
McCord v. Ghazal
43 Misc.3d 767 (Sup. Ct. Kings Cty. 2014)
In a case of first impression, the Supreme Court held that a defect in the e-filing of a summons and complaint was an "irregularity" that could be disregarded under CPLR 2001. The decision was featured in the New York Law Journal.
Meridian Capital Funding Inc. v. Einhorn
226 A.D. 2d 353 (2d Dept. 1996)
In this case, the Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s refusal to prevent our client, a former employee of the plaintiff, from working for a competitor of the plaintiff.
Green v. American Express Co.
200 F.R.D. 211 (S.D.N.Y. 2001)
This Truth-in-Lending Act class action was settled on favorable terms, and this decision held that individual notice of the settlement need not be sent to all of the class members, which would have created an enormous expense.
Cadle Co. v. Newhouse
2002 WL 1888716 (S.D.N.Y. 2002)
This action was brought by the purchaser of certain debt and alleged a fraudulent conveyance against the defendant, who had received assets from the debtor.
Suss v. MSX International Engineering Services Inc.
212 F.R.D. 159 (S.D.N.Y. 2002)
This case concerned whether the attorney-client privilege is waived when privileged documents are used to “refresh the recollection” of a witness. The matter was subsequently settled.
Polly Esters South Inc. v. Setnor Byer Bogdanoff
10 Misc. 3d 375 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. 2005)
This case, also a matter of first impression, concerned a claim for malpractice against an insurance broker, based on the broker’s failure to obtain insurance for its client through an “admitted” carrier.
Gervis v. Berg
2005 WL 3299436 (E.D.N.Y. 2005)
In a case of first impression, the District Court addressed the application of the “collateral source rule”, which provides that under certain circumstances a plaintiff’s recovery from a wrongdoer is not reduced by insurance proceeds that she has received, to payments made to the plaintiff from the Securities Investor Protection Corp. The case was subsequently settled.
Greylock Global Opportunity Master Fund Ltd. v. Province of Mendoza
162 Fed. Appx. 85 (2d Cir. 2006)
In this case, we represented an investment fund that held bonds issued by the Argentine Province of Mendoza, and challenged an “exchange offer” which substantially reduced the value of the bonds.
Friedman v. Friedman
34 A.D. 3d 418 (2d Dept. 2006)
Yeger v. Yeger
21 A.D. 3d 549 (2d Dept. 2005)
These appeals concerned the relationship between the support provisions of the Domestic Relations Law and beth din arbitration proceedings.
In re Fischer
53 Fed. Appx. 129 (2d Cir. 2002)
Crown Heights Jewish Community Council Inc. v. Fischer
216 F. 3d 1071 (2d Cir. 2000)
In re Fischer
308 B.R. 631 (Bk. E.D.N.Y. 2004)
Our firm represented a party to a real estate dispute in the Crown Heights Jewish community that went on for approximately 20 years, and resulted in extensive litigation in state and federal trial and appellate courts. In one of the appeals to the Second Circuit, we were successful on a petition for rehearing where the Second Circuit reversed its prior summary order dismissing the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction and granted our client the relief it sought. In another case, an eight day trial of seventeen adversary proceedings where a group of plaintiffs asserted claims that they were the rightful shareholders of numerous corporations that held title to real properties in the Crown Heights section of Brooklyn, we successfully defended the debtor and obtained the dismissal of all of the claims on limitations grounds.
Pereira v. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh
525 F. Supp. 2d 370 (S.D.N.Y. 2007)
This case concerned the scope of coverage under a “directors and officers” liability policy.
Dick’s Concrete Co. Inc. v. K. Hovnanian at Monroe II
20 Misc. 3d 1145 (A), 2008 WL 4274481 (Sup. Ct. Orange Cty. 2008); 17 Misc. 3d 1136(A), 2007 WL 4244728 (Sup. Ct. Orange Cty. 2007)
This action raised numerous issues under the Trust Fund provisions of the Lien Law.
1523 Real Estate Inc. v. East Atlantic Properties LLC
24 Misc. 3d 1228(A), 2009 WL 2340668 (Sup. Ct. Kings Cty. 2009)
In this complex trial involving the effect and meaning of a lease of an entire building that included an obligation by the landlord to construct the premises in accordance with plans attached to the lease, we successfully represented the tenant in proving that the landlord did not comply with its obligation under the lease and ignored certain zoning rules. The case was favorably settled after trial.
JAV Auto Center v. Behrens
360 Fed. Appx. 176 (2d Cir. 2009)
This was a federal civil rights action brought against the NYS Thruway Authority by a towing service that had been terminated from its exclusive right to tow on a stretch of the Thruway on allegedly retaliatory grounds.
Mendelovitz v. Cohen
66 A.D. 3d 849 (2d Dept. 2009), decision after trial, 28 Misc. 3d 1217(A), 2010 WL 3036996 (Sup. Ct. Kings Cty. 2010)
This case concerned an alleged oral joint venture agreement to purchase and develop a large commercial property in Brooklyn. After the Appellate Division held that there were issues of fact, the case was tried before the court.
Katz v. Alpert
82 A.D. 3d 588 (1st Dept. 2011); 68 A.D. 3d 640 (1st Dept. 2009)
In this intra-family real estate dispute, the court addressed the arbitrability of claims asserted against non-signatories to an agreement containing an arbitration clause and which sets forth the rights and obligations of the partners with respect to the underlying properties, who had obtained title to the underlying property interests.
In re Kollel Mateh Efraim, LLC
2011 WL 1629665 (Bk. S.D.N.Y. 2011)
After trial, a judgment was entered in our clients’ favor, dismissing the trustee’s claim that our clients had personal liability to the trustee because they allegedly breached their fiduciary duty to the debtor.
Silverman v. Sound Around Inc. (In re Alou Distributors Inc.)
404 B.R. 710 (Bk. E.D.N.Y. 2009)
After a trial, a judgment was entered in our client’s favor, dismissing the trustee’s claim to set aside various pre-filing payments from the debtor to our client as fraudulent conveyances.
Poznanski v. Wang
84 A.D. 3d 1048 (2d Dept. 2011)
In this appeal, we secured a reversal and reinstatement of our client’s claim to a brokerage commission against an entity owned by Charles B. Wang. In the subsequent bench trial, we obtained a favorable verdict.
In re Estate of Chung Li
32 Misc. 3d 1225(A), 2011 WL 3274233 (Surr. Ct. Queens Cty. 2011)
This case concerned the application of the statute of limitations to a claim for “conversion” by the decedent of uncertificated shareholder interests in various real estate owning corporations.
Soussis v. Lazer Apthekar, Rosella & Yedid, PC
91 A.D. 3d 753 (2d Dept. 2012)
In this legal malpractice action, the Appellate Division upheld our assertion of the attorney-client privilege to block production of certain emails between plaintiff and her counsel in the underlying action. The case was subsequently settled on favorable terms.
Gruenspecht v. Balboa Insurance Co.
93 A.D. 3d 482 (1st Dept. 2012)
In a case of first impression, the Appellate Division upheld a complaint alleging that the insurance company’s delay in paying the proceeds of a homeowner’s policy deprived the homeowner of the opportunity to sell the house at a favorable “pre-meltdown” price. Following the Appellate Division’s decision, the case was settled on favorable terms.
Aiani v. Donovan
98 A.D. 3d 972 (2d Dept. 2012)
In this special proceeding, the Appellate Division granted our request (rarely granted under the caselaw) to “unseal” Grand Jury materials obtained from the United Arab Emirates pursuant to a United States Department of Justice request for legal assistance, in order to assist in the enforcement of our client’s civil judgment against the target of the criminal investigation.
Fleischer v. NYP Holdings Inc.
104 A.D. 3d 536 (1st Dept. 2013)
This action was brought by the subject of an article in the “New York Post” which engendered a variety of hostile “reader comments” on a number of websites, and which gave rise to claims for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Schwimmer v. Malinas
38 Misc. 3d 1220(A), 2013 WL 452792 (Sup. Ct. Kings Cty. 2013)
In this challenge to a beth din arbitration award, the court addressed the “public policy” exception to enforcement of arbitration awards, as well as the minimum procedural requirements which must be afforded a party in an arbitration hearing under Article 75 of the CPLR.
Laufer v Rothschild
143 A.D. 2d 732 (2d Dept 1988)
In this case, the Appellate Division held that a customer who purchased XMI Options through his broker from a market "specialist" (the person responsible for establishing and maintaining an orderly market) on the day after the crash of October 19, 1987 could sue the specialist for common law fraud, when he placed a "market order" for the Options and the price established by the specialist went from $4 to $28 in a matter of minutes.
Matter of Pace Photographers, Ltd.
71 N.Y. 2d 737 (1988)
Pace is one of the most important cases under the corporate dissolution statute, BCL 1104-a. Pace holds that once a corporation makes an election to purchase under BCL 1118 for "fair value", the determination of "fair value" is the only remaining issue in the case; the existence of "oppression" (the grounds for the dissolution petition) is no longer at issue. Pace also holds that even though a shareholders agreement contains an agreed upon price for a buyout, that price is not necessarily binding for purposes of "fair value" under Section 1118. Pace is frequently cited and discussed. In a later appeal, 163 A.D. 2d 316 (2d Dept 1990), the Appellate Division clarified that a corporation's election under Section 1118 is generally irrevocable.
Citibank NA v Press Realty Corp., Inc.
139 Misc. 2d 558 (Sup Ct NY Cty 1988)
This case resolved a then unresolved issue in New York law, and held that the equity of redemption of a defaulting mortgagor is terminated by the foreclosure sale, and does not extend to the delivery of the referee's deed.
Ferrer v Appleton
190 A.D 2d 146 (1st Dept 1993)
In this pro bono matter, we challenged the operation by Bronx Lebanon Hospital of a medical autoclave, on grounds that it was harmful to the health of the community. While we prevailed in the trial court, the matter was reversed on appeal. We had substantial community support for our litigation.
Julien v Machson
245 A.D. 2d 122 (1st Dept 1997)
This was one of the first, if not the first, case which held that a matrimonial attorney who does not comply with the special matrimonial rules in the Uniform Rules concerning retainers, billing and the like, may not recover a fee from his former client. It is frequently cited.
Schick v Berg
430 F. 3d 112 (2d Cir 2005)
This case made new law on the limits of the fiduciary duty owed by an attorney to members of a putative (not yet certified) class.
Royal Industries Ltd v Kraft General Foods, Inc.
926 F. Supp. 407 (SDNY 1996), aff'd, 164 F3d 619 (2d Cir 1998)
Judge Haight's opinion is frequently cited for the circumstances under which a subsidiary can act as an agent for its parent in entering into a contract.
Schnall v Amboy National Bank
279 F. 3d 205 (3d Cir. 2002)
In this appeal under the Truth in Savings Act ("TISA"), the Third Circuit reinstated our complaint on behalf of a customer aggrieved by an advertisement that did not comply with the somewhat detailed regulations promulgated under TISA. This case is one of the very few appellate decisions on TISA; Congress ultimately repealed the private right of action provided for under the statute.
Fallsview Glatt Kosher Caterers v Rosenfeld
7 Misc. 3d 557 (Civ Ct Kings Cty 2005)
When a caterer which organized a Passover holiday at a hotel sued a customer who had cancelled based on an oral agreement to attend, we argued that the action must be dismissed under the UCC statute of frauds, which requires that contracts for the sale of goods be evidenced by a writing signed by the party to be charged, because the "predominant purpose" of the holiday event was the delivery of meals, and food is a "good." In a scholarly opinion, the court reviewed the precedents, and ultimately held that the holiday event contained too many "non-food" items to constitute the "sale of goods." The case was picked up by the media, and is discussed in some treatises and law school syllabi as illustrative of the distinction between "goods" and "services."
Rabbi Jacob Joseph School v Province of Mendoza
425 F. 3d 207 (2d Cir 2005)
We represented the holder of bonds issued by the Argentine Province of Mendoza; the merits of the appeal challenged a coercive tender offer of the Province that substantially reduced the value of the bonds. In this appeal, the Second Circuit resolved a novel issue (not decided in the Circuit) concerning the applicability of the final judgment rule to claims that have been dismissed by stipulation without prejudice. The case has been cited a number of times by other courts and is discussed in treatises.
Yeger v Yeger, unreported
(Sup. Ct. Rockland Cty. 2009)
In this pro bono matter, we challenged the validity of a beth din award (rabbinical arbitration panel) , which divided property between husband and wife in a manner which severely disadvantaged the wife, and provided her with far less than she would have received under the equitable distribution laws of the State. In what we believe to be a novel holding, the court vacated the Award on grounds that it violated public policy. The matter was later settled.
Rivera v NYP Holdings, Inc
16 Misc. 3d 1121(A), 2007 WL 2284607 (Sup. Ct. NY Cty. 2007)
This was one of the decisions in an action for defamation against the New York Post, brought by a Supreme Court Justice in Kings County, arising from a series of articles that accused the Justice of various improper and/or unlawful acts. This decision held that the publication of the subject articles in several different editions of the same day's paper constituted separate "publications", giving rise to separate causes of action for defamation. The case received substantial publicity in the “New York Law Journal”, as well as the “New York Times”, and was subsequently settled.
Edelstein v Greisman
67 A.D. 3d 796 (2d Dept 2009)
This case concerned the right of a matrimonial attorney to recover a legal fee against his client, even though he has failed to comply with the Uniform Rules governing matrimonial practitioners. The attorney prevailed in a fee arbitration, notwithstanding the acknowledged failure to comply, and we unsuccessfully argued that the award was contrary to public policy. The case was covered in the “New York Law Journal.”
Friedman v New York City Administration for Children's Services
2005 WL 2436219 (EDNY 2005), later opinion, 2009 WL 2222803 (EDNY 2009)
In this case, a non-custodial parent brought a Section 1983 action against ACS, based upon ACS' suspension of his visitation rights as a non-custodial parent. In a case of first impression, the court held that the visitation rights of a non-custodial parent constituted a sufficient "liberty interest" to be a predicate for a Section 1983 claim. The Judge later denied ACS' motion for summary judgment on behalf of the caseworker who performed the allegedly constitutionally inadequate investigation.