The decisions in cases in which we have successfully represented our clients are often cited by other courts and noted in commentaries that accompany statutes. Here are summaries of some of those decisions:

Chock Full O'Nuts Corp. v. NRP LLC I [11 A.D.3d 385 (2004)], in which we successfully represented a building owner in an action against a holdover tenant and the third party that attempted to belatedly exercise a right to renew a net lease.

Tadir Air, Inc. v. FGH Realty, Inc. [297 A.D.2d 230 (2002)], in which we successfully obtained dismissal of an action to enforce a mechanics lien.,+Inc.+v.+FGH+Realty,+Inc&hl=en&as_sdt=6,33&as_vis=1

NRP L.L.C., II v. La Casa Elegante, Corp. [180 Misc.2d 300 (1999)], in which the court affirmed our position that possession of a undivided space demised under two separate leases could be regained in a single summary proceeding

Nineteen New York Properties Ltd. Partnership v. Kim [251 A.D.2d 104 (1998)], in which the Appellate Division agreed with our position that a opposing counsel could be liable for damages to our landlord client for abuse of process issued on behalf of his  tenant client.

Cyber Land, Inc. v. Chon Property Corp. [36 A.D.3d 748 (2007)], in which a tenant’s purported right of first refusal to purchase a building was determined to be null and void due to its repeated failure to pay rent on time.

 Erich Fuchs Enterprises v. American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, Inc. [95 A.D.3d 558 (2012)], in which the appellate court agreed with the lower court and out client that patently unsupported claims could not defeat conclusive documentary evidence offered in support of a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR § 3211.

 Kvest LLC v. Cohen [86 A.D.3d 481 (2011)], in which the appellate court reversed a lower court’s dismissal of our client’s claim against his insurance broker, finding that (i) there were issues of fact as to whether the broker had timely forwarded along our client’s notice of claim to the carrier and (ii) the broker could be liable for counsel fees incurred by our client in defense of the carrier’s action to disclaim coverage.,33&as_vis=1

 Fredric M. Reed & Co., Inc. v. Irvine Realty Group, Inc. [281 A.D.2d 352 (2001)], in which we successfully defended our client in trial and on appeal against a former employer’s claim of breach of fiduciary duty and misuse of trade secrets.,+Inc.+v.+Irvine+Realty+Group,+Inc&hl=en&as_sdt=6,33&as_vis=1