PRO

Daniel Eliot Silverman's Legal Cases (3)

Call for a consultation Call (855) 596-8222 Message View Profile

Landlord or tenant

Supreme Court of the State of New York (New York County): Finnegan, et. al. v. MVG Properties, LLC, et. al.

Feb 04, 2016

OUTCOME: New York Supreme Court Judge granted our clients' motion within days of case commencement. Shortly thereafter (3 weeks later), the parties settled on mutually agreeable terms.

For nearly 18 months prior to working with my firm, four former tenants of a luxury residential apartment in Midtown NYC were trying to settle a dispute with their former landlord and its commercial te ... nant, which was operating a restaurant/bar out of the mixed-use building's ground floor. The dispute concerned (a) a sizable security deposit illegally retained by the residential tenants' landlord after the tenants moved out and possession of the apartment was returned, and (b) unsafe conditions emanating from the commercial tenant's premises, during the term of the residential tenants' lease. Prior to our firm's involvement, the tenants tried but failed to negotiate an amicable resolution to their dispute, and other law firms had sent letters to the landlord on behalf of the tenants, but these too were unsuccessful in resolving the dispute upon terms satisfactory to the tenants. Soon after commencing our representation, it became clear that our clients were entitled to appropriate relief, but neither the landlord nor its commercial tenant would consider the dispute serious enough to settle upon reasonable terms, unless strong, targeted and meaningful legal action was commenced. Thus, after working meticulously with the tenants and conducting independent fact finding, our firm prepared effective pleadings and commenced a New York State Supreme Court action, wherein we further moved for injunctive relief against the landlord, including, among other things, for the immediate return of the illegally retained security deposit.

Bankruptcy and debt

U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York: In re Olympic Property Partners, LLC, Case No. 15-23658 (RDD)

Jan 26, 2016

OUTCOME: Federal Bankruptcy Judge granted our client's motion to dismiss the involuntary petition, awarded our client (as against Petitioner) attorneys' fees and costs, and reserved for future consideration a further award of punitive damages against Petitioner.

A predatory lender ("Petitioner") provided funds in the form of a loan to our client (an active and robust limited liability company operating in the real estate space) and was irritated when our clien ... t disputed the bonafides and legality of the loan, so the Petitioner (as a petitioning creditor) commenced an involuntary bankruptcy case against our client out of spite to stigmatize our client a bankrupt debtor under Federal Law and ultimately exact what it deemed revenge by destroying our client's business, unless our client decided to resolve the dispute entirely in Petitioner's favor. On behalf of our client, we moved decisively and expeditiously to dismiss Petitioner's petition on numerous grounds, including that the claim it propounded in the bankruptcy case was the subject of a bonafide dispute, meaning it was insufficient under Federal Law (the United States Bankruptcy Code) to support the involuntary bankruptcy case. We further argued that the sole petitioning creditor's diligence undertaken prior to filing its petition was grossly inadequate, and the act of filing the petition and pursuing the involuntary bankruptcy case was itself undertaken out of spite, and in bad faith. In essence, we argued that Petitioner was improperly utilizing the Federal Bankruptcy Code as a private collection agency, which is expressly forbidden under well-settled case law in the jurisdiction, and, as a result, our client was further entitled not simply to dismissal of the petition but also to an award, against the Petitioner, of its attorneys' fees, costs and other damages. After an extensive and involved oral argument, the Bankruptcy Judge agreed with us on every material point that mattered.

Landlord or tenant

Supreme Court of the State of New York (County of Kings): Gerovich, et. al. v. Pelofsky, et. al.

Jul 14, 2014

OUTCOME: NY Supreme Court Judge granted our clients' motion on July 7th. Days later, the matter was resolved on terms acceptable to our clients; under written settlement agreement, Defendants returned every penny of the tens-of thousands of dollars they stole.

Former tenants, and counter-parties to a written contract for the purchase, of a co-op apartment ("Plaintiffs") called on our firm to resolve a dispute with their landlord-owner and others ("Defendants ... "), who individually and together conspired to and did, unlawfully and under false pretenses and empty promises, extract, convert and steal tens-of-thousands of dollars from Plaintiffs, and refused thereafter to either account for or return same for more than two and one-half years. After numerous telephone conferences with Defendants and other communication with same, through letters and e-mails, offering to settle the above dispute in good faith failed to achieve acceptable settlement terms, we worked with our clients and other persons and entities with personal knowledge of the relevant events in carefully crafting a detailed and effective complaint and other moving papers and supportive pleadings. Ultimately, we commenced an aggressive legal action on behalf of Plaintiffs and against Defendants by Summons and Complaint in New York State Supreme Court (Kings County). Our firm also simultaneously moved by Order to Show Cause, for immediate relief, including for the attachment of Defendants' assets located: (i) in New York, including (among other things) funds held in bank accounts and shares representing ownership of a unit in a government-sponsored cooperative housing complex in Brooklyn, New York, and (ii) outside of New York, including (among other things) Defendants' home in New Jersey. These papers were filed immediately after the July 4th weekend.