CASES OF NOTE


  • Federated Retail Holdings, Inc. v. Sanidown, Inc.


    Obtained a $2,392,818.13 net verdict for a counterclaiming manufacturer in a breach of contract action brought by a major national retailer. The manufacturer was awarded the contract price of goods wrongfully rejected by the retailer, lost profits on cancelled orders for additional goods which had not yet been shipped, and chargeback damages resulting from the retailer’s failure to make payment in full on invoices for goods shipped and received under prior contracts. The Court found that the retailer could not reject the manufacturer’s goods as non-conforming without proper testing of the goods and without making a written demand for adequate assurance of performance under the U.C.C.. The manufacturer was awarded damages in the total amount of $4,102,004.71, which was offset by the award to the retailer of damages in the amount of $1,709,186.58 as a result of the manufacturer’s delivery of non-conforming goods under a prior contract.

  • Silvestri v. Smallberg


    Obtained a jury verdict in the amount of $2,059,000.00 affirmed on appeal in a medical malpractice action resulting from the defendant’s failure to perform a lumbar puncture to diagnose the cause of the plaintiff’s headaches (neurosyphilis). The Appellate Division’s decision is published at 224 A.D.2d 172.

  • Divito v. Ringel


    Obtained a jury verdict in the amount of $325,000.00 in a medical malpractice
    action resulting from the defendant’s failure to diagnose a kidney infection in an infant.

  • Dallas v. Ambasz


    Obtained a jury verdict in the amount of $150,000.00 for a torn ankle ligament without surgery suffered by the plaintiff when she tripped and fell on account of a misleveled elevator.

  • Freedman v. Family Communications


    Obtained a jury verdict for a business owner denying a former employee’s claim to recover commissions.

  • Baytree Associates, Inc. v. Forster


    Obtained an order from the Appellate Division dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint seeking to enforce an oral finder’s fee agreement on the ground that plaintiff’s actions in introducing the parties and assisting them with an initial public offering were not unequivocably referable to the alleged oral agreement. The Appellate Division’s decision is published at 240 A.D.2d 305.

  • Lader v. Sherman


    Obtained an order from the Appellate Division affirming the Trial Court’s Order setting aside the jury’s finding that the defendant’s departure from accepted medical practice in performing surgery on plaintiff’s leg was not the proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries as against the weight of the evidence. The Appellate Division’s decision is published at 58 A.D.3d 809.

  • LaRusso v. Katz


    Obtained a reversal from the Appellate Division of the Trial Court’s Order dismissing a plaintiff’s legal malpractice complaint. The Appellate Division held that the affirmation in opposition submitted by the defendant attorney was improper under C.P.L.R. § 2106 and that material issues of fact existed whether the attorney breached a duty of care by jointly representing both husband and wife in the underlying motor vehicle accident case. The Appellate Division’s decision is published at 30 A.D.3d 240.

  • Kopel v. Bandwidth Technology Corp.


    Obtained an affirmance from the Appellate Division of the Trial Court’s Order dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint seeking to compel the delivery of stock pursuant to a stock purchase agreement as barred by the Statute of Limitations. The Appellate Division’s decision is published at 56 A.D.3d 320.

  • HBJOBaron Associates v. Leahing


    Obtained an affirmance from the Appellate Division of the Trial Court’s Order denying a defendant’s motion to vacate an award of summary judgment on the ground that the defendant was bound by the alleged errors and omissions of his attorney in the absence of a showing of extraordinary circumstances. The Appellate Division’s decision is published at 142 A.D.3d 585.

  • State Farm Insurance Company v. Smith


    Obtained a reversal from the Appellate Division of the Trial Court’s Order permanently staying arbitration of an underinsured motorist claim. The Appellate Division held that the lower court had erred in ignoring that the parties’ agreement to arbitrate the plaintiff’s damages in the underlying personal injury action contained a provision which limited the collateral estoppel effect of the determination of the amount of plaintiff’s damages. The Appellate Division’s decision is published at 277 A.D.2d 390.

  • 21st Mortgage Corp. v. Adames


    Obtained an affirmance from the Appellate Division of the Trial Court’s Order denying a bank’s motion for summary judgment in a mortgage foreclosure action on the ground that the supporting affidavit constituted inadmissible hearsay. The Appellate Division’s decision is published at 153 A.D.3d 474.

  • Bloostein v. Morrison Cohen LLP


    Obtained an affirmance from the Appellate Division of the Trial Court’s Order dismissing a law firm’s third-party complaint seeking contribution in connection with a legal malpractice claim, on the ground that no claim for contribution exists in an action where the plaintiffs seek to recover for purely economic loss. The Appellate Division’s decision is published at 157 A.D.3d 120.

  • Pietropinto v. Benjamin


    Obtained an affirmance from the Appellate Division of the Trial Court’s Order reinstating the plaintiff’s personal injury complaint on a motion to renew based upon a showing that a triable issue of fact existed whether plaintiff had sustained a “permanent consequential” or “significant limitation” of use of her lumbar spine. The Appellate Division’s decision is published at 104 A.D.3d 617.

  • Allen v. Hoffinger, Friedland, Dobrish & Stern, P.C.


    Obtained a reversal from the Appellate Division of the Trial Court’s Order dismissing the plaintiff’s legal malpractice complaint as barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel. The Appellate Division held that plaintiff was not collaterally estopped from establishing that she would have prevailed in the underlying divorce action “but for” her attorney’s legal malpractice in causing the default. The Appellate Division’s decision is published at 283 A.D.2d 346.

  • O’Halloran v. 345 Park Co.


    Obtained an affirmance from the Appellate Division of the Trial Court’s Order denying the defendant’s motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint as time-barred due to the plaintiff’s demonstration of some symptoms to chemical exposure more than three years prior to the filing of her toxic tort complaint. The Appellate Division held the earlier symptoms were too isolated and inconsequential to trigger the running of the Statute of Limitations. The Appellate Division’s decision is published at 251 A.D.2d 260.

  • Almonte v. New York City Health And Hospital Corp.


    Obtained leave to serve a late notice of claim on behalf of an infant more than eight years after the alleged medical malpractice.

  • S.E.C. v. Adoni


    Obtained the dismissal of a Section 10(b)(5) claim on the ground that the SEC had failed to prove that the defendant’s alleged fraudulent conduct was “in connection with” the purchase or sale of securities. The Court’s decision is published at 60 F.Supp.2d 401.

  • Bayport Funding LLC v. 349351 Central LLC


    Obtained the dismissal of a lender’s commercial foreclosure complaint on the ground that the individual who had executed the subject note and mortgage lacked authority to bind the defendant limited liability company.

  • Espinosa v. FAE Holdings 400874R, LLC


    Obtained the dismissal of a plaintiff’s personal injury complaint against a commercial property owner on the ground that sidewalk street signs and signpost stumps are not part of the sidewalk for the purposes of New York City Administrative Code § 7-210.

  • United States v. Sprint Equities (NY), Inc.


    Obtained a reversal from the The Second Circuit Court of Appeals of the District Court’s Order finding that real property owned by tenants-in-common could be sold in its entirety due to a restitution order issued against one of the tenants-in-common. The Second Circuit held that the inclusion of an individual’s name on a deed creates a rebuttable presumption that the individual acquired some interest in the deeded property and that the government had failed to establish any of the elements required to establish a constructive trust on the property. The Court of Appeals’ decision is published at 92 Fed. Appx. 841.

  • AM Trust Bank v. Genice


    Dismissed the bank’s foreclosure complaint as abandoned pursuant to C.P.L.R. § 3215(c).

  • Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. McNair


    Dismissed the bank’s foreclosure complaint for lack of standing to foreclose.

  • GMAC Mortgage Corp. v. Velasquez


    Dismissed the bank’s foreclosure complaint as abandoned pursuant to C.P.L.R. § 3215(c).

  • HSBC Bank USA, N. A. v. Point Holding Alpha LLC


    Dismissed the bank’s foreclosure complaint as barred by the Statute of Limitations.

  • Judgment Collection


    Warner & Scheuerman was hired by a law firm to pursue collection efforts in connection with a judgment for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The judgment was more than five years old and thought to be stale. In less than 60 days, we identified more than $300,000 in assets of the judgment debtors and obtained 80% of the money owed to the judgment creditors.

READ MORE