Municipal Law & Land Use - Article 78 Proceedings - Zoning Board of Appeals
McCarthy Fingar's Municipal Law & Land Use lawyers are often defending decisions made by our municipal clients. Here, James K. Landau and Lori Lee Dickson successfully obtained the dismissal of two Article 78 petitions brought by AVC Properties, a landowner and developer who sought to appeal from resolutions issued by against firm client Village of Mamaroneck Zoning Board of Appeals (the “ZBA”). The Court agreed with ZBA’s argument that challenges to its resolutions were not ripe for judicial review because the resolutions were not final and any claimed harm by the landowner may be prevented, ameliorated or rendered moot by further steps available to petitioner and further administrative action.
Business Litigation - Mediation - Dispute Over Land Development
KOSL Building Group, LLC, et al. v. Minvielle, AAA Case No. 01-18-0004-2257-2-JF
Our Business Litigation lawyers are sometimes asked to assist clients in disputes that can be resolved by mediation. Here, James K. Landau successfully represented a contractor in connection with a dispute over an owner of land to be developed in Rye, New York. The parties entered into a contract giving KOSL, the exclusive right to build a house and other improvements on the subject property. The owner claimed that notwithstanding the foregoing, it had the right to choose another contractor to build a sea wall and dock on the property. After successfully invoking the alternative dispute resolution procedures provided in the contract, Mr. Landau obtained a favorable settlement on behalf of KOSL in mediation conducted via the American Arbitration Association.
Business Litigation - Arbitration/Mediation
Krowe v. Todd, AAA Case No. 01-18-0000-4009
Our Business Litigation lawyers represent clients in arbitration before the American Arbitration Association. James K. Landau and Irma K. Nimetz successfully represented a business owner in a dispute with the other member of a closely held limited liability company. Here, our client commenced an arbitration through the American Arbitration Association seeking damages on theories of breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing and seeking an accounting and the imposition of a constructive trust based on certain alleged unauthorized use of company funds by the respondent. After the respondent interposed counterclaimed and moved for summary judgment, a settlement favorable to our client was obtained in mediation.
Business Litigation - Lien Law - Mechanics Lien
Matter of Petition of 1241 Castle Hill LLC (Sup. Ct. Bronx, Index No. 26434/17E)
McCarthy Fingar’s Business Litigation lawyers sometimes represent clients in connection with proceedings involving mechanic’s liens. Here, James K. Landau obtained a judgment in favor of an owner of a building cancelling and vacating a mechanic’s lien placed on the building by a supplier of restaurant products and equipment to a restaurant who was a tenant in the building. He did so by first serving the lienor with a notice and demand pursuant to § 59 of the Lien Law that the lienor commence an action to foreclose its lien or show cause why the lien should not be canceled and vacated. When the lienor failed to respond within the time frame set forth in the statute, Mr. Landau commenced a special proceeding to cancel the lien pursuant to Lien Law § 19(4).
Our firm’s Surrogate’s Court Litigation group represents both fiduciaries and beneficiaries in Property Turnover Proceedings, and statutes of limitations issues frequently arise in such cases. Here, James K. Landau, who is also a member of our Appellate Practice and Business Litigation groups, convinced the Appellate Division, Second Department, to reverse the Surrogate’s Court order that had granted the executor’s motion for summary judgment against Mr. Landau’s client in an action alleging conversion, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty and the imposition of a constructive trust and denied Mr. Landau’s client’s cross-motion for summary judgment dismissing the petition. In reversing, the Second Department agreed with Mr. Landau’s argument that petitioner had failed to meet her prima facie burden of establishing her entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the causes of action alleging fraud, breach of fiduciary duty and seeking the imposition of a constructive trust. The Second Department also agreed with Mr. Landau’s argument that his client’s cross-motion to dismiss the conversion cause of action in the petition should have been granted because it was not commenced within three years of the alleged conversion.
Brook v. NYI Building Products, Inc., et al. (Sup. Ct., Nassau, Index No. 60803/17)
Our firm’s Business Litigation and Corporate & General Business groups sometimes team up for our clients. Here, James K. Landau and Douglas S. Trokie successfully represented our clients who had sold their business to defendants, only to have defendants default under a settlement agreement amending a prior stock purchase agreement, consulting agreement and a non-compete and non-solicitation agreement. We commenced an action for breach of contract as well as for a judgment declaring that that our clients had no further obligations to defendants under both of the non-compete and settlement agreements due to defendants’ breach. In an effort to get more leverage, defendants interposed a frivolous counterclaim and interposed improper disclosure demands that sought to impose burdens on plaintiffs that were greater than those imposed by the CPLR and Commercial Division Rules. A settlement favorable to our clients was obtained after we moved to dismiss the counterclaims and for sanctions.
Business Litigation - Vacating Mechanics Lien
Matter of Petition of Riverdale Equities Ltd (Sup. Ct., Bronx, Index No. 28462/2017E)
McCarthy Fingar’s Business Litigation lawyers sometimes assist clients in vacating mechanic’s liens. Here, James K. Landau obtained a judgment in favor of an owner of a building cancelling and vacating a mechanic’s lien placed on the building by a supplier of restaurant products and equipment to a restaurant who was a former tenant in the building. He did so by first serving the lienor with a notice and demand pursuant to § 59 of the Lien Law that the lienor commence an action to foreclose its lien or show cause why the lien should not be canceled and vacated. When the lienor failed to respond within the time frame set forth in the statute, Mr. Landau commenced a special proceeding to cancel the lien pursuant to Lien Law § 19(4).