Representative Matters

Republic Insurance Company V. Banco De Seguios Del Estado, 2013 WL 3874027 (N.D. Ill) (Hart, J.), granting, in part, defendant’s motion for summary judgment on claims by a reinsured against a retrocessional counter-party – upon a determination that the reinsured failed to retain the contractually agreed upon a minimum amount of risk, and that a number claims were time-barred.
Nouveau Elevator Indus. v. Cont’l Cas. Ins. Co., 2006 WL 1720429 (E.D.N.Y.) (Bianco, J.), denying defendant insurance company’s motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of plaintiff insured’s declaratory judgment coverage claim, upon a determination that constructive notice is not sufficient to trigger insured’s the notice of claim obligations.
UNMB Home Loans, Inc. V. Meadowbrook Financial Mortgage Bankers Corp., et al., 659116/2024 (Sup. Ct., Nassau Co. 2025) (Carlton, J.), granting defendants’ motion to dismiss claims for breach of restrictive covenants against former employees and stay claims of tortious interference against new-employer based upon arbitration provisions contained employment agreements.
Tower National Insurance Company, v. Kancar, 231 A.D.3d 420 (1^sDep’t. 2024), reversing on appeal trial court’s refusal to dismiss a residential sub-tenant from a neighboring commercial tenant’s claim for flood damage. The Appellate Division agreed with the argument that the flooding was caused by failed plumbing and found that the sub-tenant could not be liable based on the theory of res ipsa loquiter – where there was no evidence that the sub-tenant knew or should have known about a plumbing issue or a leak before the flooding occurred. The decision was further supported by the lease documents – which placed the responsibility for maintaining the plumbing on the sub-landlord, not the sub-tenant. The Appellate Division granted the sub-tenant’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case.
WHGA Hamilton Heights Cluster, Inc. v. A& HHC Equities, LLC, 2018 WL 5823656 (Sup. Ct., N.Y. Co. 2018) (Sherwood, J.), affirmed 186 A.D.3d 409 (1^st Dep’t. 2020), granting general partner’s (a subsidiary of West Harlem Group Assistance, Inc.) motion for summary judgment confirming that the original signed limited partnership agreement governs the Partnership, and dismissing the derivative claims initiated by James Fendt (a member of the purported limited partner) -- asserting that the Partnership agreement was amended by alleged capital contributions from an entity related to the limited partner, the existence of certain loan documents, the issuance of certain K1s and the conduct of third-parties. The decision, awarded after four (4) years of bitter litigation, makes clear that, pursuant to NY Partnership Law, Section 121-110(c), a purported amendment to a partnership agreement which seeks to, among other things, change the rights and obligations of the partners, must be agreed to in writing by all of the partners. The decision further found Safeguard Realty Management Inc. (the managing agent installed by Fendt) and Fendt’s violations of Judge Kornreich’s July 2015 Order directing the management of the Partnership be turned over to a Court-appointed Receiver constituted contempt and awarded the general partner legal fees in connection with its enforcement of the Court’s prior Order.
WHGA Hamilton Heights Cluster, Inc. v. A& HHC Equities, LLC, 2015 Slip Op. 31209(U) (Sup. Ct., N.Y. Co. 2015) (Kornreich, J.), granting movant general partner’s motion to intervene, assert a declaratory judgment claim as to the partnership agreement that governs the Partnership, and dismissing the complaint brought by a member of the purported limited partner by and through the limited partner, as the limited partner was without authority to act on behalf of the Partnership, and further disqualifying the limited partner’s attorneys from purporting to simultaneously represent both it and the Partnership.
Darby Group Companies, Inc. v. Wulforst Acquisition, LLC, 2014 WL 3870374 (Sup. Ct., Suffolk Co. 2014) (Whelan, J.), granting plaintiff mortgagee’s motion for summary judgment on commercial mortgage foreclosure and dismissing defendants’ affirmative defense that they were fraudulently induced into purchasing the properties by mortgagee’s alleged representations as to letters of credit that were required to be maintained on the property, or that mortgagee was equitably estopped from foreclosing based upon mortgagee’s alleged representations – given that the status of the letters of credit was fully disclosed to defendants and, therefore, they could not have detrimentally relied upon mortgagee’s allegedly fraudulent representations.
Larrison v. Scarola Reavis & Parent, LLP, 11 Misc. 3d 572, 812 N.Y.S.2d 243 (Sup. Ct., N.Y. Co. 2005) (Zweibel, J.), granting petitioner’s motion to stay her former attorneys’ AAA arbitration against her for legal fees, based upon her attorneys’ failure to strictly abide by Rule 137’s requirements for obtaining a client’s waiver of rights and consent to arbitration before the AAA.
Nacionvich v. Tullet & Tokyo Forex, Inc.,1998 WL 1050971 (Sup. Ct., N.Y. Co. 1998) (Miller, J.), defeating defendants’ motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of plaintiff’s defamation, hostile work environment and retaliation claims – specifically holding that graphic cartoons depicting plaintiff as having sex with another man may constitute libel per se.

Daniel I. Goldberg

Representative Matters

Firm Highlights