This case concerned the scope of coverage under a “directors and officers” liability policy.

This action raised numerous issues under the Trust Fund provisions of the Lien Law.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.”

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.