Cuddy & Feder partners, Mike Katz and Bill Null, represented the owner of five parcels of property adjacent to the North White Plains Metro-North Station in its sale to BRP Companies. Cuddy & Feder advised the client in all phases of transactional, zoning and marketing matters as well as closing the transaction, which represents a substantial Transit Oriented Development opportunity in White Plains.
Partner William S. Null secured a Third Modification of Amended Site Plan Approval, Steep Slopes and Wetlands Permit Approval from the Planning Board of the Village of Briarcliff Manor. Mr. Null also secured prior approvals from the Village of Briarcliff Manor for the development of a Senior Living Retirement Community known as The Club at Briarcliff Manor.
Cuddy & Feder Land Use Attorneys Anthony B. Gioffre III and Daniel Patrick secured Site Plan and Special Exception Use Approval for 108 Gateway Development LLC (Managing Member Edmond DeLaurentis Jr.) from the Village of Port Chester Planning Commission to construct a new 9-story mixed-use development along one of the Village’s major gateways and within walking distance to the Village’s Main Street and the Metro-North Railroad Station.
Litigation Department Co-Chair Andrew Schriever recently obtained a judgment for $3.48 million for fraudulent inducement of a loan, despite the defendant’s attempt to dismiss the claim because of an earlier bankruptcy. While the client’s fraud claim against the defendant existed, the defendant declared bankruptcy and obtained an order discharging his debts. He then tried to argue that the fraud claim should be dismissed on that basis. However, Mr. Schriever was able to obtain an order from the bankruptcy court finding that when a fraud claim existed but could not be reasonably discovered at the time of a bankruptcy, the fraud claim can survive even after the bankruptcy is closed. This paved the way for the case to go forward to obtain the judgment for the client, which now cannot be avoided by the defendant attempting to go back into bankruptcy.
A grasp of procedural rules often leads to substantive advantage. Recently, Cuddy & Feder obtained a default judgment on a client’s breach of contract counterclaim by successfully arguing that the plaintiff had “no reasonable excuse” for failing to timely answer the counterclaim, and that the plaintiff did not have a potentially meritorious defense to the counterclaim. Compelling presentation of the evidence and arguments resulted in the motion being granted. Our litigators seek not only think outside of the box, but skillfully use a forum’s rules to achieve success for our clients.
Disputes between tenant and landlord are complicated by the fact that often, while a suit is underway, the landlord/tenant relationship continues to exist and rent accrues. After several years of legal wrangling, the Cuddy & Feder team led by Josh Kimerling recently won summary judgment decisions from the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dismissing two lawsuits against their clients, a shopping center owner-landlord and one of its tenants for whom the shopping center was being expanded.
The disputes arose when the shopping center began renovations. Two of the other tenants were unhappy about this, and brought suit, citing lost profits and damages caused by the construction’s dust, noise and debris. One sued for hundreds of thousands of dollars and the other for $4 million in damages based on claims that the expansion project breached their lease and interfered with their businesses. Both tenants stopped paying rent and eventually vacated the shopping center.
In response to the tenants’ complaint, we interposed counterclaims for rent and possession of the premises. We applied to the Court for summary judgment dismissing all of the tenants’ claims against the landlord on the basis that provisions in their leases barred the tenants from seeking the types of damages they sought. The Court, persuaded by our arguments, dismissed all of the tenants’ claims against the landlord and ordered the parties to appear for a settlement conference. Cuddy & Feder was able to secure six-figure settlements for the landlord on its counterclaims for unpaid rent.
Through assiduous maneuvering, Cuddy & Feder was able to turn around $4.2 million worth of claims against its client into settlements in its favor.
Sometimes a fresh perspective on a stale case can make all the difference. Recently, the Cuddy & Feder litigation team, led by Joshua Kimerling was retained to provide post-trial representation in a quiet title action involving adverse claims against valuable lakefront property. After thorough review of the trial transcript and relevant deeds, we identified that the lawyers and judge had inadvertently missed a critical piece of the puzzle during trial. We crafted a post-trial memorandum that explained the trial evidence in a new light, and ultimately achieved a very favorable decision protecting the client’s valuable property interest.
The Cuddy & Feder team of Joshua Kimerling, Jordan Brooks, and Leanne Shofi recently won another Yellowstone injunction application after acting swiftly to protect a telecommunications tower owner’s valuable commercial lease from potential termination. Yellowstone injunctions safeguard commercial leases by preventing landlords from terminating a commercial lease after a Notice of Default is served, so long as the injunction is sought prior to expiration of the cure period. A Yellowstone injunction tolls the cure period while the court determines whether breaches have occurred. Cuddy & Feder secured protection for its client by establishing all the required aspects for a Yellowstone injunction; specifically, that the tenant was a party to a commercial lease, that it received a notice of default, that it moved for a Yellowstone injunction prior to termination of the lease and prior to the expiration of the cure period, and that the tenant was prepared and able to cure the defaults to the extent they were found to exist.
Cuddy & Feder’s litigation team regularly represents tenants and landlords in commercial lease disputes, offering strategies carefully tailored to clients’ business objectives.
When a court orders an official act and that act is completed, it is a high burden to get the court to rescind that act. But, after a client came to us asking that an execution sale ordered by the court be set aside, we had exactly that hill to climb. Specifically, our client was a judgment creditor against an estate and the lone significant asset of the state was a piece of property. Accordingly, the Supreme Court Putnam County ordered the Sherriff’s office to conduct an execution sale where the property was sold at auction to satisfy the judgment. But the auction was sparsely attended and the multi-acre property sold for only $100, leaving our client in a position where it would end up with essentially nothing. The Cuddy & Feder litigation team of Joshua Kimerling and Brendan Goodhouse stepped in at this point filing a motion to set aside the execution sale as void based on the unconscionably low price the property sold for. After multiple rounds of briefing and argument, the Court accepted our position and set aside the execution sale, which ultimately permitted our client to recover a meaningful amount on its judgment.
Where know-how, methods or means, and confidential data is central to the success of a business, that business is likely to intersect with trade secret law at some point – particularly when hiring employees from other companies within the same industry. One of the particular disadvantages of being named a defendant in a trade secrets lawsuit is that such matters are often fact-intensive and cannot be resolved with an early dispositive motion. Representing a regional pharmacy facing a theft of trade secrets claim for $10 million, Cuddy & Feder was able to overcome those odds. The Cuddy & Feder litigation team, led by Brendan Goodhouse, won a motion to dismiss in the New York Supreme Court, Commercial Division, dismissing all claims asserted against our client because the plaintiff failed to sufficiently allege that our client employed wrongful means in acquiring the alleged trade secrets.