Legal Decisions

  1. Advanceme, Inc. v. Avitto II, Inc. et al.
    Our client, a purchaser of future credit card receivables, won summary judgment and defeated a usury defense. The court held that the purchases made by our client were not loans because, among other things, plaintiff bore the risk of not being repaid from future credit card advances.
    Read the entire decision: Advanceme_v._Attivo.pdf

  2. Silhouette, LLC v. Piruz Enterprises, Inc.
    In this case our client is a textile company located outside of New York who was owed monies for goods sold and delivered to defendant, a New York based company. The only defense offered by defendant was that plaintiff as a foreign corporation was not authorized to do business in New York, The court dismissed that defense, holding that a foreign company who does nothing more than mere solicitation of customers is not "doing business" in New York, sufficient to warrant filing a certificate of authority with the Secretary of State.
    Read the entire decision: Silhouette_v._Piruz.pdf

  3. Parkway Group v. Modell's Sporting Goods
    Here's one where we were on the other side of a collection. In this case, the plaintiff thought it was entitled to a real estate brokerage commission because of a letter agreement which never really spelled out an exclusive arrangement. In affirming the trial court's dismissal of the plaintiff's case, the Appellate Court held that plaintiff was not the procuring cause of the subject transaction; the letter agreement failed to include an essential term relating to the commission to be earned and that in any event, the plaintiff-broker had clearly abandoned the deal.
    Read the entire decision: Parkway_v._Modells.pdf

  4. Victoria Graphics v. Priorities Publications
    When decided this was a case of first impression in New York on the issue of whether a debtor's tradename could be the subject of a forced sale under New York's post-judgment levy statutes. In finding for our client, the creditor, the court found that a trademark, even without associated good-will, could be the subject of an execution sale if the purchaser was in the same or similar business as the debtor.
    Read the entire decision: Victoria_Graphics_v._Priorities_Pub.pdf

  5. David Greenberg Textiles, Inc. v. New York Community Bancorp., Inc.
    This is a case involving restrictive indorsements. Our client, the plaintiff in this matter, paid for goods that were never delivered by the seller. Instead, the seller, who it turns out was really a defunct corporation, indorses plaintiff's check with the name of the defunct corporation and deposits the check into a different account at defendant's branch. The court held that the burden was on defendant to establish that it acted in a commercially reasonable manner. The facts showed that the seller's indorsement was restrictive and its attempt to deposit plaintiff's check in another account should have put the defendant bank on notice. The bank is held liable and our client gets all of its money back plus interest.
    Read the entire decision: Greenberg_v._NY_Comm.pdf

  6. FedEx TechConnect, Inc. v. OTI, Inc. (d/b/a Emma New York)
    In a case before the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, the defendant unsuccessfully moved to vacate a default judgment granted to our client based upon, among other arguments, that its business address had changed and was not the address on file with the Secretary of State upon whom plaintiff had effected service. The federal district court held that the defendant had an obligation to keep its address current with the Secretary of State and that a defendant seeking to vacate a default judgment had to satisfy a three-prong test: (1) whether the default was willful; (2) whether the defendant demonstrates a meritorious defense; and (3) whether, and to what extent, vacating the default judgment will cause prejudice to the non-moving party.
    Read the entire decision: FedEx TechConnect v. OTI

  7. ABF Freight System, Inc. v. Accardi Electric Motor Co, Inc.
    Our client, a common carrier and the plaintiff in this case sued in New York State court for freight charges and moved for summary judgment. The defendant claimed that the deliveries were late and that it had off-setting injuries. The state court, citing federal law, recognized that federal law under the Carmack Amendment (49 U.S.C. § 14706) controlled and pre-empted state law and ruled that defendant’s defenses were barred by the nine (9) month limitation period of the Carmack Amendment. The state court therefore granted our client summary judgment for the full amount of its claim, plus interest and attorneys’ fees of 30% of the claim.
    Read the entire decision: ABF Freight v. Accardi.SJ Decision

  8. Street-Works Development LLC v. John Richman
    In a decision by the federal district court in New York, our client, a real estate developer and consultant was sued by one of the participants in a proposed deal for fraud and damages for all of the supposed money the participant would have made but for our client's alleged misrepresentations concerning their experience and skills. The particular context of the case concerned whether the defendant in his counterclaims against our client and against individual members of the client had sufficiently and adequately plead fraud under New York law. In his pleadings, the defendant specifically let the court know just how sophisticated he was by claiming that "he had been the developer on real estate projects since he left graduate school"; had "partnered with high net-worth individuals"; and "successfully orchestrated over $3 Billion of real estate projects nationwide". Given such experience and skill, the Court held that the defendant could have investigated the experience and background of the members, but since he failed to do so he could not have plausibly relied on the representations of our clients. The decision is also noteworthy for its ruling on what damages are available in fraud actions and what has to be plead to state a claim of partnership. Read the decision Street-Works_Development_LLC_v._John_Richman.pdf