Home » Practice Areas » Appellate Practice » Representative Cases

Representative Cases and Matters for Appellate Practice

Matrimonial & Family Law - Appellate Practice - Child Relocation

Tsui v. Tsui, 2012 NY Slip Op 06800

One of the most satisfying things our Matrimonial & Family Law lawyers do is to help our clients succeed on child custody issues. Here, Joel M. Aurnou convinced the Appellate Division, Second Department, to unanimously affirm the lower court's decision granting Joel's client permission to relocate to Texas with four small children during a pending matrimonial. Citing "a sound and substantial basis in the record" and relying upon Matter of Tropea v. Tropea (argued by Kathleen Donelli of this firm), the Court unhesitatingly approved these elements of proof: (1) the husband did not make regular support payments, (2) the plaintiff demonstrated she could not meet expenses in New York for that reason, and (3) she would receive financial and child care assistance from, and residence rent-free with, her parents. The Court quoted Tropea as follows: "[E]conomic necessity . . . may present a particularly persuasive ground [for] permitting the proposed move", and so held in affirming in this case.


Appellate Practice - Business Litigation - Dismissal of Claims against Auction Gallery

Tarleton v. Astor Galleries, Ltd., 70 A.D.3d 811 (2d Dep’t 2010), lv. to app. denied, 15 N.Y.3d 715

Joseph J. Brophy, after a bench trial, successfully won a directed verdict in favor of the firm’s client, who owned and operated an auction gallery in Connecticut. The plaintiff sought recovery from the auction gallery on the grounds that it was liable for loss of her consigned goods on three different theories of recovery. In granting the directed verdict dismissing all three of plaintiff’s theories, the Supreme Court found the plaintiff presented no factual support of her claims at trial and a judgment dismissing her claims was warranted. Dina M. Aversano, together with Joseph J. Brophy, wrote the appellate brief that successfully opposed the plaintiff’s appeal from the direct verdict judgment to the Appellate Division, Second Department. The Second Department unanimously affirmed the direct verdict, and awarded costs associated with the appeal in favor of the auction gallery. Following denial at the Appellate level, the plaintiff sought leave of the Court of Appeals for a further appeal.  Dina successfully opposed this motion, and leave was denied.


Appellate Practice - Matrimonial & Family Law - Discovery Dispute - Motion to Quash

Morganti v. Morganti, 72 A.D.3d 662 (2d Dep't 2010)

Pre-hearing discovery disputes are often a subject of decisions by the courts. In Morganti, Joel M. Aurnou’s client was subpoenaed for her financial records by her husband's ex-wife. In the lower court, Joel sought to quash the supboena. The Appellate Division, Second Department, unanimously reversed the lower court and quashed the subpoena, finding that the lower court "improvidently" denied Joel's motion.


Appellate PracticeBusiness Litigation - Cancellation of Unauthorized Mortgages

ER Holdings, LCC v. 122 W.P.R., 65 A.D.3d 1275 (2d Dep’t 2009)

Joel M. Aurnou convinced the Appellate Division, Second Department, to affirm a lower court decision granting summary judgment against a title company in favor of Joel's clients, and cancelling two unauthorized mortgages on its flagship real estate holding. The Court also resolved in Joel's client's favor issues of apparent authority and due diligence.


Appellate PracticeBusiness Litigation - Ownership of Shopping Centers

Tedesco v. Tedesco, 64 A.D.3d 583 (2d Dep’t 2009)

In Tedesco, Joel M. Aurnou prevailed in litigation over the ownership of shopping centers. The Appellate Division, Second Department, unanimously affirmed a lower court ruling granting summary judgment to Joel’s clients covering ownership of a $4 million shopping center and several other commercial and residential properties. The Second Department also rejected  Appellant’s contention that summary judgment was premature because  Appellant had not yet had any examinations before trial.


Appellate Practice - Business Litigation - Reduction on Finder's Fee for Commercial Real Estate Sale

Contest over Finder’s Fee for Sale of Commercial Real Estate

Our lawyers sometimes represent clients in disputes over finder's and brokerage fees on real estate and business transactions. Here, Dina M. Aversano, together with Judge Sondra M. Miller and Dolores Gebhardt, wrote and prepared the appellate brief in the Appellate Division, Second Department, to seek to overturn the Supreme Court, Nassau County’s award, following a bench trial, of a $500,000 finder’s fee on a commercial real estate transaction. We argued that no such fee was warranted because of the lack of any causal relationship in the “finder’s” role in facilitating the eventual transaction. The Appellate Division Second Department awarded a downward modification of the fee.


Matrimonial & Family Law – Appellate Practice - Award of Counsel Fees to Client Upheld; Adversary Filed Frivolous Motion - Appointment of Receiver to Sell Marital Residence Upheld

 

Pickens v. Castro, 55 A.D.3d 443 (1st Dep’t 2008)

Legal fees in matrimonial cases are often an important economic issue for both sides. Pickens is a complex case in which, among other things, defendant husband appealed Order Appointing Receiver of marital residence on the ground that the Order empowered the receiver to encumber the property. Defendant husband also appealed the trial court’s award of counsel fees and costs to Dolores Gebhardt's client as a sanction for the defendant making a frivolous motion. Dolores, representing the wife, successfully persuaded the Appellate Division, Second Department, to uphold the lower court determination on appeal.

 


Matrimonial & Family LawAppellate Practice - Decision Relieving Client of Payments for Additional Child Support & Private School

Herlitz-Ferguson v. Herlitz-Ferguson, 48 A.D.3d 418, 851 N.Y.S.2d 272 (2d Dep’t 2008)

Child support obligations are often a contested issue in divorce actions and the work of our matrimonial lawyers. Here, the parties had a separation agreement that required Dolores Gebhardt's client to pay 31% of his income toward his child support obligations upon finding employment; and obligated the plaintiff wife to be solely responsible for paying for the children's extracurricular, health insurance and medical expenses. However, the lower court ruled against Dolores Gebhardt's client. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the lower court ruling, finding that the trial court had erred in directing Dolores' client to pay 48% of statutory add-ons and to contribute 30% of private school tuition and costs for the parties' two daughters.

Tax Certiorari & Condemnation - Appellate Practice - Prior Negative Declarations Support Long, Hard Look

Sylvan Development Corp. v. Westchester Joint Water Works, 853 N.Y.S.2d 918 (2d Dep't 2008).

As part of their work, Tax Certiorari and Condemnation lawyers must understand environmental issues and their impact on a property's valuation. Representing Westchester Joint Water Works (WJWW), Stephen Davis successfully upheld WJWW's condemnation against attack from an alleged failure of WJWW to undertake adequate environmental considerations. Exercising its original jurisdiction, the Appellate Division sustained the argument that WJWW properly relied upon three prior negative declarations for the affected subdivision in discharging WJWW’s obligation to take and consider the required long, hard look at the project’s effect upon the environment.


Appellate Practice - Matrimonial & Family Law - Enforceability ot Settlement Agreement - Dispute on Annuity

O’Shell v. O’Shell, 54 A.D.3d 914 (2d Dep’t 2008)

When matrimonial lawyers settle cases, great skills must be used to insure that a lawyer's client gets the benefit of the negotiated bargain. Even then, there are often disputes over the terms and conditions of settlement agreements. Here, the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed a lower court order preventing Joel M. Aurnou’s adversary from obtaining any part of a $1.4 million annuity from a matrimonial settlement dictated on the record in open court.


Appellate Practice - Surrogate’s Court Litigation - Contested Accounting

Matter of Bloomingdale, 48 A.D.3d 559, 853 N.Y.S.2d 92 (2d Dep’t 2008)

Our lawyers sometimes represent corporate and individual fiduciaries in contested accounting proceedings. In one such case, Robert M. Redis and the firm sought, through a summary judgment motion in the Surrogate’s Court, to dismiss objections asserted to an accounting of our client, a co-trustee, by the remaindermen of the trust. The remaindermen filed objections to the accounting, alleging violation of the diversification requirement of the Prudent Investor Act, even though they were aware of the challenged transactions and even though they later became co-trustees and continued to hold the same challenged investments. The Surrogate dismissed the objections as to the original co-trustee, who had previously resigned as co-trustee, but basically denied our motion to dismiss the objections to the accounting of our client. In Matter of Bloomingdale, 48 A.D.3d 559, 853 N.Y.S.2d 92 (2d Dep’t 2008), the Appellate Division partially reversed the Surrogate, holding that because co-fiduciaries are one entity, the remaindermen could not maintain objections for the period in which they served as co-trustees.


Matrimonial & Family LawAppellate Practice - Divorce on Ground of Abandonment Denied

Molloy v. Molloy, 33 A.D.3d 892, 823 N.Y.S.2d 209 (2d Dep’t 2006).

McCarthy Fingar's lawyers are leaders in the legal community, and our Matrimonial & Family Law lawyers have been strong proponents of no-fault divorce. In fact, Judge Sondra M. Miller was an influential voice in the passage, in 2010, of the new no-fault divorce law. In Molloy, Dolores Gebhardt’s client was denied a divorce on the ground of abandonment. The decision became the basis for Dolores Gebhardt’s article on the law of abandonment entitled, "Justice Abandoned: Forty Years of Stalemate in Actions for Divorce on the Ground of Abandonment" 27 Pace Law Review 605 (2007).


Surrogate’s Court Litigation - Appellate Practice - Post Nuptial Agreement Contest - Replacing Condo Unit Triggers Ademption

Davis v. Willinger, 31 A.D.3d 429 (2d Dep't 2006)

Our lawyers represent clients on dispute on prenuptial and post  nuptial agreements. Here, in a declaratory judgment action involving an esoteric point of law, Stephen Davis and Joel M. Aurnou achieved an abatement of a surviving spouse’s contract with her husband to bequeath the proceeds of sale of the couple’s Miami Beach oceanfront condominium residence to her late husband’s daughter. Applying the ademption concept, the trial court - unanimously affirmed by the appellate court - ruled that the promise to bequeath pertained only to the condominium owned by the couple at the time of the promise, notwithstanding that they replaced their original condominium with another in the very same Collins Avenue condominium building.


Appellate Practice  - Business Litigation - Real Estate Transactions - Option to Purchase Real Estate

Keiser v. Todd, 290 A.D.2d 492, 736 N.Y.S.2d 255 (2d Dep't 2005)

If a dispute as to a real estate transaction cannot be settled, lawyers need skill and experience to win a case in court. In this matter, Robert H. Rosh successfully defended our client at both the lower court and appellate levels, in an action brought by a tenant to enforce a purported option to purchase our client’s real property. Rob moved for, and obtained, an order dismissing the tenant’s complaint. In support of its dismissal, the court held that the draft option agreement between the parties did not identify the property to be conveyed with sufficient particularity to satisfy New York’s Statute of Frauds, General Obligations Law §5-703(2), and was therefore unenforceable.

Following our client’s victory, the tenant refused to vacate the premises and Rob successfully pursued on our client’s behalf a proceeding that resulted in the eviction of the tenant from the premises.


Business Litigation - Appellate Practice - Real Estate Transactions - Release of Development Bonds

Bayswater Gracewood LLC v. Planning Board of Village of North Hills, 19 A.D.3d 411 (2d Dep't 2005)

Developers sometimes come to McCarthy Fingar and our Business Litigation group to deal with disputes with municipalities on the terms and conditions of a development deal. Here, Robert M. Redis  and the firm successfully sued the Planning Board of the Village of North Hills and its building department over the failure of the municipality to release staged infra structure subdivision and bonds, as called for in the enabling municipal  approvals. The development was a high end project in a wealthy Long Island community. The municipality had refused to release the bonds until other matters unrelated to the bonds were resolved. Those other issues involved substantial amounts of money and would have harmed  the client if the bonds were not released. After the municipality wrongfully refused to release the bonds. Bob commenced a CPLR  Article 78 Proceeding to have the bonds released and persuaded the trial court to make an order mandating the release of the bonds. The municipality immediately appealed the order, holding up the release of the bonds, but the Appellate Divsion, Second Department unanimously upheld the lower court decision, and the bonds were released.


Business Litigation - Appellate Practice - Statute of  Frauds on Real Estate Transaction

Frankel v. Ford Leasing Dev. Co., 7 A.D.3d 757, 776 N.Y.S.2d 905 (2d Dep't 2004)

Our lawyers defend clients on unwarranted lawsuits for enforcement of alleged contracts. Here, Robert H. Rosh successfully defended an action that was brought against his client for specific performance of a contract to sell real property. Rob moved for and was awarded summary judgment dismissing the action. On appeal, the lower court’s decision was affirmed, finding that the parties never had a meeting of the minds, and that the documents which had been relied upon by the plaintiff in support of his claim had omitted essential terms of a contract; and, thus, the claim was barred under the statute of frauds. The appellate court also found that the actions taken by the plaintiff were not unequivocally referable to a contract of sale so as to constitute part performance sufficient to defeat the statute of frauds, and were merely steps taken in contemplation of a future agreement.


Matrimonial & Family Law - Appellate Practice - Child Custody

Amari v. Molloy, NYLJ 8/8/00, p. 23, col. 5 (Kings County Sup. Ct. 2000), aff'd, 293 A.D.2d 431 (2d Dep't 2002)

Sometimes, child custody issues cannot be resolved by the parties without a trial. In this case, Kathleen Donelli persuaded the trial court and appellate court to award child custody to her client.


Business Litigation - Appellate Practice - Attorney Fee Dispute

Papadopolous v. Goldstein, Goldstein & Rikon, P.C., 283 A.D.2d 649, 725 N.Y.S.2d 364 (2d Dep’t 2001), appeal denied, 97 N.Y.2d 677

In this case, Robert H. Rosh and Robert M. Redis successfully represented two (2) individuals at both the lower court and appellate levels in a fee dispute with their former counsel involving a condemnation proceeding. The dispute arose after the individuals discharged their former counsel and negotiated a sale of their properties on their own. The court held that the individuals had the right to settle their case on their own, and that their former counsel were only entitled to recover in quantum meruit for the legal services rendered to the individuals in connection with the condemnation proceeding.


Appellate PracticeMatrimonial & Family Law - Child Custody - Parental Alienation

J.F. v. L.F., 181 Misc. 2d 722, 694, N.Y.S.2d 592 (1999), aff’d sub.nom., Faneca v. Faneca, 270 A.D.2d 489, 705 NYS2 281 (2d Dep’t 2000), lv den., 95 N.Y.2d 756

Changes in circumstances sometimes require a change in child custody between the parties. Joel M. Aurnou prevailed at trial and unanimously on appeal in changing custody to the father, where the mother had alienated the children. J.F. v. L.F. is a leading case on parental alienation as a basis for a change of custody.


Legal Malpractice - Appellate Practice - Restoration of Case Dismissed for Prior Attorney's Failure to Prosecute

Lieber v. Vitelli, 270 A.D.2d 396 (2d Dep't 2000)

Sometimes, lawyers fail to identify and pursue a claim that should have been brought for a client; and sometimes the trial court makes the wrong decision when a legal malpractice claim is filed. Here, Joseph J. Brophy obtained a reversal from the Appellate Division, Second Department, on a legal malpractice action brought against an attorney for a failure to prosecute a claim for a client. The malpractice claim had been wrongly dismissed by the trial court.


Surrogate's Court LitigationAppellate Practice - Contested Accountings

Matter of Marsh, 265 A.D.2d 253 (1st Dep’t 1999), app. denied, 95 N.Y.2d 755 (2000), app. dismissed, 95 N.Y.2d 956 (2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 1038, 121 S. Ct. 1999, 149 L.Ed.2d 1002 (2001)

Our lawyers often represent beneficiaries in contested accountings of executors and trustees. In one such case, Frank W. Streng and Robert M. Redis succeeded at the trial court level and obtained a surcharge against a former executor in excess of $1.6 million and an award of attorneys fees against that former fiduciary in the amount of $250,000. Bob and Frank then succeeded in upholding the Surrogate's Court's determinations on all appeals.


Appellate Practice - Legal Malpractice - Paternity - Motion to Dismiss

Savattere v. Subin Associates, PC, 261 A.D.2d 236, 690 N.Y.S.2d 229 (1st Dep’t 1999)

When a lawyer is sued by his client, the invariable first legal battle is a motion to dismiss the legal malpractice claim. In Savattere, Joel M. Aurnou persuaded the trial court to deny the defendant’s motion to dismiss the legal malpractice claim. Then, Joel persuaded the Appellate Division, First Department, to unanimously affirm the lower court decision on the appeal. Afterwards, Joel settled the case for his client very favorably.


Business Litigation - Appellate Practice - Article 78 Proceeding - Nursing Home

Hudson Communities Coalition, Inc. v. New York State Office Parks, Recreation & Historic Preservation, 251 A.D.2d 504, 673 N.Y.S.2d 595 (2d Dep’t 1998)

Our lawyers represent clients in disputes over different types of real estate matters. Here, Robert H. Rosh and Robert M. Redis intervened on behalf of St. John’s Riverside Hospital and successfully defended it in the lower court in an Article 78 proceeding, and on an appeal to the Appellate Division, Second Department. In this case, a coalition sought to overturn certain administrative determinations as to the siting and design of St. John’s proposed nursing home facility in Yonkers, New York.


Business Litigation - Appellate Practice - Real Estate Transactions - Obtained Stock Warrants in Lieu of Rent

Middlebury Off. Park Ltd. Partnership v General Datacomm Indus., 248 A.D.2d 313, 670 N.Y.S.2d 482 (1st Dep't 1998)

Our lawyers represent companies in disputes on sophisticated business transactions, sometimes involving real estate. Here, Robert M. Redis, on appeal, convinced the the Appellate Division, First Department, to reverse a lower court's denial of a motion for summary judgment. The outcome was that Bob's client obtained stock warrants as part of the rent on a large commercial property located in Connecticut

This matter involved a commercial net leasing arrangement between our client -lessor (Middlebury) and defendant-lessee (General Datacomm) (GDC). The lease was subsequently amended to provide GDC a rent reduction in return for its issuance of warrants to purchase its common stock, pursuant to a separate warrant agreement. Specifically, the original lease, executed in 1984, provided for two forms of rent. The first was a scheduled rent, which initially consisted of a fixed amount but which, during the course of the 12-year lease, became an indexation of a fixed amount. The second was “additional rent”, which essentially passed on to GDC all costs, expenses or obligations of maintaining the property, such as real estate taxes, utilities, insurance, repairs, etc. The additional rent provisions remained unchanged under any of the three amendments to the lease.

The lease was first amended in 1992, to lower the scheduled rent by eliminating the indexation and lowering the fixed amount, in consideration for the warrant agreement, which provided for the issuance of warrants by GDC to Middlebury allowing the latter to purchase shares of the former's common stock. The number of warrants issued would be determined by a formula applied to the “net rental savings”, the difference between the fixed rent under the original lease and that under the amended lease.

Pursuant to this formulation of the warrant agreement, GDC duly issued warrants to Middlebury in October 1993.  Although earlier that year Middlebury had made a claim against GDC for indemnification regarding environmental damages alleged by third parties, which subsequently evolved into a Federal action, the lessee GDC did not factor this claim or any other “additional rent” item into the calculation of the number of warrants issued.   This was true despite the executions of the first amendment to the warrant agreement just after the environmental claim was made, and the second amendment to the warrant agreement at the time the warrants were issued.  Also within this period, the second and third lease amendments were made, further reducing the scheduled rent.

The second amendment to the warrant agreement provided that the “net rental savings” be determined by the difference between what would have been the scheduled annual rent under the original lease and the scheduled annual rent paid as set forth in the second amended lease. GDC, however, declined to issue warrants for 1994 and 1995, claiming that due to the pending environmental indemnification claim, it was unable to calculate the number of warrants to be issued.

Bob on behalf of Middlebury commenced an action seeking specific performance of the obligation to undertaken by GDC to issue the stock warrants. The motion for summary judgment was denied. Bob on behalf of Middlebury  took an appeal. After oral argument on the appeal, the Appellate Division, First Departmentreversed the denial of summary judgment and ordered GDC to issue the stock warrants to our client.


Surrogate's Court Litigation - Appellate Practice - Will & Trust Contests

Matter of Marsh, 236 A.D.2d 404 (2d Dep’t 1997)

McCarthy Fingar often represents clients in Will & Trust Contests. Frank W. Streng, as counsel to the named executor, successfully defended against objections to the filing of a Codicil to the Decedent’s Will. At trial, a jury upheld the Codicil to the Decedent’s Will and threw out objections made to such Codicil by one family member. On appeal, we persuaded the Appellate Division, Second Depatment, to uphold the trial judge’s refusal to set aside the jury verdict.


Matrimonial & Family Law - Appellate Practice - Child Relocation

Frayne v. Frayne, 234 A.D.2d 545 (2d Dep't 1996)

One of the most satisfying things our Matrimonial & Family Law lawyers do is to get a favorable outcome for a client on a child custody issue. Kathleen Donelli won the landmark New York State Court of Appeals decision on child relocation in Tropea v. Tropea, and has frequently lectured on child relocation issues. In a child relocation case, Kathleen successfully persuaded the Appellate Division, Second Deparment, to permit her client, the custodial parent, to relocate.


Matrimonial & Family Law - Appellate Practice - Child Relocation

Tropea v. Tropea, 87 N.Y.2d 727, 665 N.E.2d 145, 642 N.Y.S.2d 575 (1996)

Custody of minor children is sometimes an issue that continues after the parents obtain their divorce and have reached agreement on visitation issues. Sometimes, the custodial parent seeks to change his or her location, and the noncustodial parent cries foul and seeks to prevent or oppose that relocation. In Tropea, Kathleen Donelli prevailed in a child relocation case in New York's highest court, the New York State Court of Appeals. Tropea established the prevailing law in New York on relocation.


Appellate Practice - Legal Malpractice - Motion for Dismissal - Enforcement of Settlement

Wolstoncroft v. Sassower, 124 A.D.2d 582, 507 N.Y.S.2d 728 (2d Dep’t 1986); 212 A.D.2d 598, 623 N.Y.S.2d 7 (2d Dep’t 1995); 234 A.D.2d 540, 651 N.Y.S.2d 609 (2d Dep’t 1996)

One example of legal malpractice is a lawyer's failure to bring or defend against a lawsuit. In Wolstoncroft, a lawyer had failed to defend a lawsuit brought against a client. But then, when the legal malpractice was brought for his client by Joel M. Aurnou, the lawyer then sought to dismiss the claim. Joel persuaded the trial court to deny the motion, and the Appellate Division, Second Department, unanimously affirmed the lower court decision. Later on, when the case went to trial, Joel settled the legal malpractice claim during jury deliberation at the trial. Even later, Joel brought on a proceeding to enforce the settlement.


Appellate PracticeBusiness Litigation - Punitive Damages

Kelly v. Defoe Corp., 223 A.D.2d 529, 636 N.Y.S.2d 123 (2d Dep’t 1995)

In Kelly, Joel M. Aurnou succeeded in getting a unanimous appellate opinion dismissing a punitive damage claim against his corporate client.


Business Litigation - Appellate Practice - Real Estate Transactions - Land Use & Zoning - Historic Preservation Actions

Perry Gething Foundation v. Stinson, 218 A.D.2d 791 (2d Dep't 1995)

McCarthy Fingar's Business Litigation and Real Estate Transactions groups have also represented clients on real estate title disputes. Here, Robert M. Redis successfully obtained summary judgment at the trial court after extensive discovery. The issues involved restrictions on land use, historic preservation, zoning matters and doctrines of merger of ownership. The plaintiff commenced this action for declaration that the prior owner’s 1980 "subdivision" of Lot No. 4 violated the restrictive covenant prohibiting a lot subdivision without the approval of the owners of the other three lots. If the plaintiff's position was correct, Bob's clients could lose their homes. Their property was adjacent to a property listed on the New York State Historic Registry because of it involvement in the American Revolution. The trial court determined that, insofar as the prior owners of the property, the Benjamin family, either individually, or through their controlled  corporation, Andros Realty Co., owned all of the parcels as of 1922, the restrictive covenant at issue was extinguished by the doctrine of merger. This determination was contested on appeal. The Appellate Division, Second Department, disagreed with the lower court and found that the merger had not occurred; but Bob won the appeal when they agreed with his alternative argument that the plaintiff's action was barred by laches. The laches argument was that the plaintiff sat back and did nothing, knowing that the homeowners were engaged in substantial construction on the lot. The plaintiff delayed seeking to enforce the restrictive covenant until after the homeowners had completed the bulk of the construction and incurred a great deal of expense with the knowledge of the plaintiff.


Business Litigation - Appellate Practice - Landlord/Tenant Issues

1185 Avenue of the Americas Associates v. The Resolution Trust Corp.

After prevailing in the Federal District Court, Kathleen Donelli successfully convinced the US Court of Appeals, for the Second Circuit, to affirm the District Court's denial of landlord's claim for $7 million in unpaid rent.


Business Litigation - Appellate Practice - Real Estate Easements

Route 22 Associates v. Cipes, 204 A.D.2d 705 (2d Dep't 1994)

Having prevailed in the lower court, Kathleen Donelli persuaded the Appellate Division, Second Department to affirmed the trial court's decision, declaring the validity of an easement.


Surrogate's Court Litigation - Appellate Practice - Taxation - Spousal Consent - Challenge of Beneficiary Designation on Qualified Plan

Lefkowitz v. The Bank of New York as Preliminary Executor of Estate of Irene B. Marsh et al., 996 F.2d 600 (2d Cir. 1993)

Our lawyers often represent clients in dealing with beneficiary designations on pension and qualified plans. In one such case, Howell Bramson, Robert M. Redis and other lawyers at the firm successfully represented a surviving spouse’s estate and persuaded the lower court to invalidate a beneficiary designation on a qualified plan for the Decedent’s child (to the exclusion of the decedent’s spouse) on the grounds that the beneficiary designation violated the spousal consent rules under ERISA. The trial court's determination was upheld, on appeal, by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. The appeal also deal with significant legal questions, such as the applicability of ERISA to controlled foreign corporations and whether these sufficiently implicated the Interstate Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution.


Surrogate's Court Litigation - Appellate Practice - Fiduciary Removal - Business Issues

Matter of Marsh, 173 A.D.2d 336 (1st Dep't 1991), app. dismissed, 78 N.Y.2d 990, mot. for lv. to appeal denied, 79 N.Y.2d 751

Our lawyers often represent beneficiaries that suffer financial injury through improper actions of executors and trustees. Here, Frank W. Streng represented a beneficiary at a trial to obtain the removal of a preliminary executor who had acted improperly in the administration of the estate. The removed fiduciary appealed, and Frank and other McCarthy Fingar lawyers, Robert M. Redis and Deborah Yurchuck McCarthy, successfully persuaded the appellate court to affirm the trial court's decision to remove the fiduciary.


Appellate PracticeBusiness Litigation - Insurance Coverage - Duty to Defend

Allstate v. Zuk, 78 N.Y.2d 41, 571 N.Y.S.2d 429 (1991)

In an insurance coverage case, Joel M. Aurnou successfully persuaded the New York  Court of Appeals to unanimously reverse two unanimous Appellate Division’s decisions. This case was  featured in the Annual Survey of N.Y. Law: 43 Syracuse L. Rev. 77, 139 (1992).


Business Litigation - Appellate Practice - Real Estate Transactions - Environmental & Land Use & Zoning Litigation

Victor Weingarten, Bayswater Development Corp. v. Town of Lewisburo, 76 N.Y.2d 460 (1990)

McCarthy Fingar's Business Litigation and Real Estate Transactions groups have large experience in real estate development issues, whether representing developers or local towns or municipalities. Here, Robert M. Redis represented the Town of Lewisboro in Northern Westchester, in upholding its local law requiring a developer of a clustered residential development to pay recreational fees in lieu of dedicating land in the development for park purposes. Previously the developer could designate certain property in the cluster development to be set aside for purposes of parks and recreation facilities, irrespective of whether the amount of nearby park and recreation facilities adequately served the specific development and the development's impact on town-wide recreational facilities.

Bob successfully upheld the law in the lower court against myriad challenges, including one arguing that the local law constituted an unconstitutional taking under the Fifth Amendment. Bob then successful defended the trial court's opinion before the Appellate Division, Second Department, and, then, before the New York Court of Appeals, in a matter of first impression.

Years later Bob was retained by  his opponent, the developer, Bayswater, to handle litigation and appeals against a different municipality located on Long Island.


Surrogate’s Court Litigation - Appellate Practice -Contested Accountings - Interpretation of Decedent’s Will

Matter of Hickok, 140 Misc. 2d 650 (Surr. Ct., Orange 1989), affirmed, 158 A.D.2d 690 (2d Dep't 1990), mot. for lv. to appeal denied, 76 N.Y.2d 712

Often, there are issues on the interpretation of a Decedent's Will that can have large effect on the Decedent's testamentary plan.  In this case, Frank W. Streng, and other lawyers at  the firm represented children of a Decedent’s first marriage in litigation against the Decedent’s surviving spouse where the surviving spouse sought (unsuccessfully) to obtain an interpretation of her husband’s Will which would have effectively excluded the Decedent’s children as beneficiaries under the Will. The other side appealed, and the appelate court affirmed the lower court ruling.


Business Litigation - Appellate Practice - Real Estate Contract

Jaffer v. Miles, 134 A.D.2d 572 (2d Dep't 1987)

In this case, Kathleen Donelli persuaded the Appellate Division, Second Department to reverse the trial court's denial of summary judgment to seller, finding that the memorandum between the seller and purchaser was not an enforceable contract.


Tax Certiorari & Condemnation - Appellate Practice - Cooperative Apartment Conversion Valued By Imputing Rental Value

Southern Westchester Associates v. Assessor of City of Yonkers, 122 A.D.2d 212 (2d Dep’t 1986)

Tax Certiorari and Condemnation cases almost always involve the use of experts to establish value. Here, Stephen Davis successfully used an expert to establish rental value for apartments in a cooperative apartment buildling conversion as part of the capitalization of income process. At the taxpayer’s behest, the court applied a remedial statute designed to avoid use of sales prices for each unit, the effect of which would make the sum of the parts worth more than the whole, i.e., worth more than a neighboring similar apartment building. Instead, the rental value, rather than the so-called conversion value, was considered to be the best measure of value. Then, Steve convinced the Appellate Division to affirm the lower court ruling.


Appellate PracticeBusiness Litigation - Contract Dispute

Generas v. Hotel Des Artistes, 117 A.D.2d 563, 499 N.Y.S.2d 69 (lst Dep’t 1986)

In Generas, Joel M. Aurnou represented a famous hotel client in a contract dispute. Joel won a unanimous Second Department appellate reversal of the denial of his summary judgment motion by the trial court.


Surrogate's Court Litigation - Appellate Practice - Taxation - Interpretation of Decedent’s Will – Allocation of Estate Taxes

Matter of McKinney, 117 Misc. 2d 173 (Surr. Ct., Westchester 1982), affirmed, 101 A.D.2d 477 (2d Dep't 1984), mot. for lv. to appeal denied, 63 N.Y.2d 607

Sometimes, the tax apportionment clause - an often overlooked clause in a will - has a huge impact on the actual distributions under a will. In this case, Frank W. Streng and others at the firm successfully represented a major health care institution in a contested accouting proceeding in which we challenged the executors’ interpretation of the decedent’s tax apportionment clause in her Will. The charitable beneficiary would have been deprived of hundreds of thousands of dollars of its proper share of a multi-million dollar estate had the executors' interpretation been adopted. The lower court opinion was affirmed by the appellate court.


Appellate Practice - Business Litigation - Criminal Law

People v. DeConto, 80 N.Y.2d 433, 591 N.Y.S.2d 131 (1992), aff’g 172 A.D.2d 684 (2d Dep’t)

In DeConto, Joel M. Aurnou successfully prevailed on appeal in both the Appellate Division and the New York Court of Appeals,  in reversing a Supreme Court Class A felony drug conviction, based on  improper jury selection procedure.


Appellate Practice - Business Litigation - Criminal Law - Prosecutorial Misconduct

People v. Shapiro, 50 N.Y.2d 747, 431 N.Y.S.2d 422 (1980)

In a highly publicized promoting prostitution case, the Court of Appeals agreed with all three of Joel M. Aurnou's contentions for the defense: improper wiretap evidence, prosecution misconduct, and the need to sever the indictments. After indictment for 69 felony counts, trial and successful appeal, prosecutors and Joel’s client settled for a single misdemeanor.


Tax Certiorari & Condemnation - Appellate Practice - User Owned Building Valued By Rental Value, Not Cost

Sear, Roebuck & Co. v. Assessor of City of White Plains, 66 A.D.2d 777 (2d Dep’t 1978)

The valuation technique used by Tax Certiorari & Condemnation lawyers is the key to success or failure of their cases. Here, Stephen Davis successfully obtained a tax assessment reduction for property owned by the user department store permitted by capitalizing rental value. He did so through the use of expert testimony on rental values, rather than employing a cumbersome reconstruction cost methodology that would have likely resulted in a higher valuation for the client's property. Steve then won on the appeal.


Appellate Practice - Matrimonial & Family Law - Equitable Distribution

Conceicao v. Conceicao, 203 A.D.2d 877, 611 N.Y.S.2d 318 (3d Dep’t 1974)

Some cases simply cannot be settled. In matrimonial cases, the amount of equitable distribution awarded to the parties sometimes cannot be resolved amicably and requires a trial. In Conceicao, Joel M. Aurnou representing a client on an equitable distribution issue, obtained a unanimous affirmance of the trial court’s 70% equitable distribution award in his client's favor.


Appellate Practice - Business Litigation - Doctor Admitted to Hospital Staff

Schwartz v. Northern Westchester Hospital, 43 A.D.2d 952, 351 N.Y.S.2d 955 (2d Dep’t 1974)

In Schwartz, Joel M. Aurnou successfully represented a doctor and  compelled the defendant hospital to grant his immediate full admission to the hospital staff without any probationary period.


Business Litigation - Appellate Practice - Landlord/Tenant - Tax Base Mutual Ignorance Fails To Support Reformation

Almar Realty Corp. v. Sockolof Bros., 35 A.D.2d 986 (2d Dep't 1970), aff'd, 29 N.Y.2d 735 (1971)

Stephen Davis and Joel M. Aurnou prevailed in a reformation action by distinguishing mutual ignorance from mutual mistake of fact.  The result was their client’s warehouse tenant paying a  real estate tax escalation rental over a base of a vacant land assessment and not against a base assessment of the completed warehouse building.


Appellate Practice - Business Litigation - Criminal Law

Harris v. NY, 401 U.S. 222, 91 S. Ct. 643, 28 L.Ed.1 (1971)

Harris v. U.S., argued by Joel M. Aurnou, was the first major criminal case of the Burger court. See also 80 Yale L.J. 1198, 1211-17 (1971).


Appellate Practice - Medical Malpractice and Personal Injury - Recovery under Labor Law In Excess of Policy Limits

Gasperino v. Larsen Ford, Inc., 300 F. Supp. 1182 (SDNY 1969), aff’d, 426 F.2d 1151 (2d Cir. 1970), cert. den., 400 U.S. 941 (1970)

In Gasperino, at trial and on appeal, Joel M. Aurnou obtained a wrongful death recovery in excess of policy limits under § 299 of the New York Labor Law (ventilation), along with specific approval by the 2d circuit panel of his trial record.


Appellate Practice - Business Litigation - Criminal Law

People v. Mirenda, 23 N.Y.2d 439, 297 N.Y.S.2d 532 (1969)

In Mirenda, Joel M. Aurnou obtained appellate reversal of a murder conviction in a case originally tried by William Kunstler, Esq.. On retrial, despite prosecution testimony of two eyewitnesses and three accomplices, defendant represented by Joel was acquitted by a unanimous jury.


Business Litigation - Appellate Practice - Foreclosure - Surplus Monies for General Creditors

Ercolani v. Sam & Al Realty Co., 17 N.Y.2d 299 (1966)

Representing a creditor, Stephen Davis successfully persuaded the Court of Appeals to reverse a decision of the Appellate Division, Second Department. Upon reversal, the lower court was compelled to recognize the right of general creditors to intervene in opposition to a referee’s report of sale, in order to restore what should have been surplus moneys from which the creditors’ claims could then be paid.