OUTCOME: My motion for summary judgment was granted. The Supreme Court, New York County agreed that there was no question of fact that Jacob received my client's invoice and retained it without objecting. My client got a money judgment.
My client Argento performed services for Jacob Jewelers designing a store front in the Dubai Mall. My client was not paid by Jacob and I sued to get my client a money judgment, on the theory of account... stated and breach of contract.
Litigation
Born to Build, L.L.C. v. Ibrahim Saleh et. al., Index No.: 009558/2011
Jul 01, 2014
OUTCOME: Sverd wins dismissal of the lawsuit against his client
Sverd Wins Dismissal of Lawsuit Against a NY LLC; $3 Million Judgment Creditor of Purported Member of the LLC, Held at Bay, the LLC and its Manhattan Building Are Protected
A NY LLC, its Manhattan pro...perty, and its members remain shielded from enforcement of a $3 million judgment against a purported member of the LLC. The Commercial Division of the Nassau County Supreme Court agreed that a judgment creditor cannot acquire a member's interest in a LLC. Rather, the creditor's rights are limited by NY LLC Law to be that of an assignee of the debtor's interest in the profits and losses of the LLC. The ruling requires that the creditor does not have voting rights and, more importantly, partition rights to force the sale of the building.
The Nassau County Commercial Division recently granted summary judgment in favor of YRSS’s client in a case involving a novel issue of law: whether a judgment creditor of a member of a limited liability company is entitled to that member’s membership interest in the limited liability company. The plaintiff in this case obtained a judgment against S, an individual who the plaintiff alleged to be a member of the defendant limited liability company, in a separate case and then purchased S’s purported membership interest at a marshal’s auction after the interest had been levied upon. By bringing this case, the plaintiff sought a judgment declaring that, by purchasing the purported membership interest, it had become the sole owner and member of the limited liability company or owner of a lesser membership interest in the company. YRSS’s client moved for summary judgment arguing that regardless of whether S was a member of the defendant limited liability company, a judgment creditor cannot obtain a judgment debtor’s membership interest in a limited liability company by virtue of paying for such interest at a marshal’s auction. Accordingly, the plaintiff’s sole cause of action sought relief that, as a matter of law, could not be granted and the case dismissed. YRSS’s client argued that pursuant to Limited Liability Company Law 607, a judgment creditor is, at most, entitled to a charging order against the debtor member’s membership interest, and may not obtain the membership interest itself. In other words, a judgment creditor may not step into the shoes of the debtor member and acquire voting and management rights in the limited liability company; the judgment creditor may only be entitled to the debtor member’s share of the profits and losses of the limited liability company. Justice DeStefano agreed with YRSS’s client’s position and held that the relief sought by plaintiff was “legally unattainable.” Accordingly, the Court dismissed plaintiff’s case.
Litigation
Thomas Summer v. Ruckus 85 Corp.
Oct 01, 2013
OUTCOME: votes taken by Coop without the vote of my client were nullified by the Court
In a Court decision highlighted as a "Decision of Interest" in the New York Law Journal, the New York State, Supreme Court granted our client's application for a ‘Yellowstone’ injunction thereby preser...ving her interest in a cooperative apartment located in lower Manhattan. This motion was necessitated in part, by the plaintiffs attempt to terminate our client's proprietary lease as the result of an alleged failure to pay the coop's legal fees that were incurred as the result of a prior enforcement issue, against our client. The Court’s order also invalidated certain votes of the other shareholders at shareholder meetings, who refused to count the vote of our client, and ordered that our client's voting rights be restored, therefore preserving her voice in the management of the cooperative apartment.
Litigation
Liu v. Asian Supermarket Corp., et al. New York State Supreme Court, Index No.: 3710/2012.
Nov 29, 2012
OUTCOME: Case against my client was dismissed for failure to state a cause of action
Attorney, Peter Sverd’s Motion to Reargue is Granted; Kings County Commercial Division Judge Dismisses Lawsuit Against Three Corporate Defendants and its Principal
Whenever you can get a lawsuit again...st your client dismissed it is a triumph. The fact that Peter Sverd, Esq. was able to get this case dismissed before discovery saved our client a lot of time, money, and aggravation. In this lawsuit, YRSS defended three corporate defendants and their principal, in an action to enjoin their continued performance of a $2.6 million stock purchase agreement. Rescission of the contract was a drastic remedy that the client needed to avoid at all costs; the client had already paid close to $1 million to the seller of the stock, had taken over all of the management duties of the companies, and had relocated his family to a distant city in the furtherance of the transaction. “From the very beginning of this case I knew that if we could convince The Court that this was merely a case about money, then the plaintiffs lawsuit against our client would be dismissed. It took some time to get the message across, but persistence paid off.” Noted Attorney Sverd. There is a fine line between being overbearing and effective in delivering a message to The Court. In walking this fine line, Mr. Sverd was able to convince The Court that the plaintiff's case was only about money, and that it ought to be dismissed against these four defendants. “When you move to Renew and Reargue you are telling the Judge that their previous order or decision was wrong, and they ought to change it. You have to have faith in The Court to revisit the issue with objective eyes. If you ever left The Court with a bad taste in its mouth about you, or your client, you may not find that The Court is apt to change its position.” Explained Mr. Sverd, who felt that The Judge in this case would see the light if given a second opportunity to decide the prior motion to dismiss the case; he was right. With the lawsuit behind the clients they are now free to complete the stock transfer agreement and continue focusing on business and providing valuable products to its customers.
Litigation
Wong & Lin Trading Corp. v. Fair Only Real Estate, Et al. Supreme Court, New York County Index No.: 114413/2010
Aug 20, 2012
OUTCOME: Mr. Sverd proved that the landlord co-mingled his clients security deposit and judgment in the amount of the security deposit was entered against the landlord
Commercial Landlord Commingled the Tenant’s Security Deposit, Immediate Judgment Entered, Litigation of Remaining Claims Continue.The New York Supreme Court, New York County, granted Attorney Sverd’s m...otion for summary judgment and awarded an immediate judgment in favor of his client against its prior landlord, who refused to return the security deposit after cancellation of the lease. Mr. Sverd represented a client of the firm who lost its commercial premises as the result of a seven alarm fire that ripped through a mixed use building on Grand Street. As a result of the fire the building was razed, and was subsequently rebuilt. Under New York law it is unlawful for a landlord to commingle a tenant’s security deposit with the landlord’s own funds. Mr. Sverd argued, and the Court agreed, that the landlord’s evasive responses to Mr. Sverd’s request for documents which was intended to identify the whereabouts of the tenant’s security deposit, was tantamount to actual commingling. The Court directed entry of an immediate judgment and the severing of the client’s remaining claims for lost profits and property damage that are still being litigated. "It is very rare that you locate a case that is directly on point to the case that you are litigating." In this case, Mr. Sverd’s diligence and skill identified such a case which resulted in a decisive victory for his client. The New York Times featured an article discussing this tragic fire.
Litigation
Wooster Store Corp. v Wooster 100 Realty LTD. Index No.: 111692/2010.
Feb 13, 2012
OUTCOME: My motion to dismiss was granted
Sverd Wins Dismissal of Lawsuit Against Manhattan Co-op
When the Co-op's commercial tenant sought court intervention to determine its rights to use the rear yard of the building to house and alter me...chanical equipment, Peter Sverd was up to the task. Mr. Sverd argued that the lawsuit was not ripe for adjudication and should, therefore, be dismissed without considering the merits of the plaintiff's case. The Court agreed, finding that a letter from the Co-op's attorney and an oral statement of its Vice President to the plaintiffs was not tantamount to official Board action 'denying the plans' which was required under the plaintiff's lease. "Knowledge of the law and attention to every fact of the case revealed that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the lawsuit in the first place. Any bargaining power that the plaintiffs thought they had brought to bare by bringing this lawsuit, turned out to be an illusion." Said Mr. Sverd. The Court dismissed the case and awarded costs and disbursements to the plaintiffs.
Litigation
Brigado Martinez and Picnic Food Corp, v. Lien Ngo and L Realty, Et al. Supreme Court, Kings County, 38753/2007
Mar 03, 2009
OUTCOME: The purported lease was voided, and the unlawful tenant had a judgment against him
Ten Year Lease for Commercial Premises Voided
In this case, Peter Sverd represented the majority interests of a closely held corporation whose sole asset was a commercial premises. The shareholder...s of the business could not decide which direction to take the business. The minority shareholder of the corporation decided that leasing the premises was in the best interest of the business and undertook to find a tenant without the consent of the other owners. To the surprise of the majority shareholders, the once vacant building was occupied by contractors who were beginning restoration work at the premises. The majority of the shareholders immediately contacted Mr. Sverd, who advised that they identify the names of the individuals who had taken possession of the premises. A letter was prepared advising the purported tenant that the landlord, did not recognizing their purported lease agreement and that they must vacate the premises and cease all construction and alterations. The tenant brought suit against the corporation for unlawful eviction and to have the Court validate their lease.
The corporation, at the direction of Mr. Sverd, moved for summary judgment, seeking an order of the Court declaring the lease void, that the tenant be ejected from, the premises, and that a money judgment be entered against the tenant for its use and occupancy of the premises. Mr. Sverd argued that the purported lease agreement violated the New York State General Obligations Law (commonly referred to as the Statute of Frauds), in as much as the minority shareholder did not have the authority of the corporation to bind it to the ten year lease. An executive officer of a closely held corporation does not require express written authorization to bind a corporation to a lease for a term of greater than one (1) year. However, any other person purporting to bind a corporation (or a landlord who is a “natural person” for that matter) must be an authorized agent, in writing, given the express authority to bind the corporation. In this case, Mr. Sverd successfully demonstrated to the Court that the minority shareholder was not an authorized agent, and the Court proceeded to void the lease.
This case serves as a reminder that caveat emptor (buyer beware) is alive and well in New York. The purported tenant was an “innocent victim” of a dispute amongst business partners. The tenant spent $20,000.00 on a security deposit, and a $35,000 judgment was entered against them for the use and occupancy of the premises. Please consult with an attorney before you sign any lease agreement.
