In Elof Hansson USA Inc. v Osterloh, Index No. 52628/2012 (Sup. Ct., Westchester Co. 2013) (Scheinkman, J.), Kucker, Marino, Winiarsky, & Bittens, LLP represented employer in lawsuit against former employees with causes of action for breach of fiduciary duties, fraud and faithless servant doctrine.
In Shred-it International Inc. v Elof Hansson USA Inc. (Del. Sup. Ct., C.A. No. N12C-06-087 JRJ-C CLD), with the assistance of local counsel, Kucker, Marino, Winiarsky, & Bittens, LLP successfully defended client in a complex civil action venued in the Commercial Division of the Delaware Superior Court.
On August 11, 2011, in 61 Fifth Ave., LLC v Wilshire Limited, Index 106226/11 (Sup.Ct., N.Y. Co., Aug. 11, 2011) (Stallman, J.), Kucker, Marino, Winiarsky, & Bittens, LLP achieved an Order which granted a petitioner’s application for a RPAPL §881 Order authorizing petitioner to enter the roof of respondent’s adjacent premises and install “roof protection” as needed before construction commences for plaintiff’s high rise building.
On July 6, 2012, in Edwin Perne v. Elof Hansson, Inc., Index 57992/2011 (Sup.Ct., Westchester Co., July 6, 2012) (Giacomo, J.), Kucker, Marino, Winiarsky, & Bittens, LLP won an Order granting defendant Elof Hansson’s pre-answer CPLR 3024 motion to strike four paragraphs in plaintiff’s complaint for breach of an alleged written employment agreement and alleged age discrimination in which plaintiff violated CPLR 4547 by discussing the parties’ settlement negotiations prior to commencement of the action and plaintiff contended that defendant’s participation in settlement discussions was because it allegedly recognized the employment agreement was enforceable – when in fact defendant denied the existence of a written employment agreement.
On October 8, 2012, in Edwin Perne v Elof Hansson, Inc., Index 57992/2011 (Sup. Ct., Westchester Co., Oct. 8, 2012) (Giacomo, J.), Kucker, Marino, Winiarsky, & Bittens, LLP won an Order granting Elof Hansson’s CPLR 3212 cross-motion for summary judgment and dismissal of four of plaintiff Perne’s five causes of action, including alleged age discrimination, retaliation, fraud and unjust enrichment.
On June 13, 2012 in 61 Fifth Ave., LLC v Wilshire Limited, Index 101995/12 (Sup.Ct., N.Y. Co., June 13, 2012) (Tingling, J.), Kucker, Marino, Winiarsky, & Bittens, LLP represented a plaintiff who defeated the defendants’ CPLR 2004 motion for a stay which sought a delay in the court’s hearing of plaintiff’s motion for an Order authorizing plaintiff to enter the adjacent premises owned by defendant and install extensions to chimneys and exhaust flues.
On July 5, 2012, in 61 Fifth Ave., LLC v Wilshire Limited, Index 101995/12 (Sup.Ct., N.Y. Co., July 5, 2012) (Tingling, J.), Kucker, Marino, Winiarsky, & Bittens, LLP won an Order which authorized plaintiff to obtain access and permission to enter defendants’ adjacent premises to perform certain work for extensions of flues and chimneys so that plaintiff may continue the construction of a high rise building – NYC Administrative Code 27-860.
On May 16, 2013, in 320 W. 13th St., LLC v. Wolf Shevack, Inc., 2013 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2297 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. May 16, 2013) (Kenney, J.), in a Commercial Lease Dispute/Complex Civil Action on the defendants’ motion for renewal after producing certain documents, Kucker, Marino, Winiarsky, & Bittens, LLP succeeded in eliciting an Order which continues the negative inference against defendants for their spoliation of key documents that remain missing.
On June 21, 2012, in Elof Hansson USA Inc. v Edwin Perne, Index 51648/2012 (Sup.Ct., Westchester Co., June 21, 2012) (Giacomo, J.), Kucker, Marino, Winiarsky, & Bittens, LLP achieved an Order granting plaintiff Elof Hansson’s motion, by order to show cause, for an Order of Replevin which orders defendant Perne to return possession of the BMW automobile solely owned by Elof Hansson.
On July 23, 2012, in 320 W. 13th St., LLC v. Wolf Shevack, Inc., Index 603730/07 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. July 23, 2012) (Kenney, J.), Kucker, Marino, Winiarsky, & Bittens, LLP won an Order denying defendants’ motion to strike plaintiff’s complaint for alleged failure to satisfy defendants’ demand for a bill of particulars, and granting plaintiff’s motion for a CPLR 3126 order requiring defendants to comply with plaintiff’s discovery demands.
On July 23, 2012, in 320 W. 13th St., LLC v. Wolf Shevack, Inc., 105 A.D.3d 586 (1st Dep’t 2013), in a Commercial Lease Dispute/Complex Civil Action, Kucker, Marino, Winiarsky, & Bittens, LLP defeated the defendants’ appeal from the July 23, 2012 Order that imposed negative inference for spoliation.
On August 21, 2012, in 61 Fifth Ave., LLC v Wilshire Limited, Index 101995/12 (Sup.Ct., N.Y. Co., Aug. 21, 2012) (Tingling, J.), Kucker, Marino, Winiarsky, & Bittens, LLP won an Order and Judgment authorizing plaintiff to install extensions for flues and chimneys and weather protection on defendants’ adjacent premises.
On July 23, 2012, in 320 W. 13th St., LLC v. Wolf Shevack, Inc., 2012 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3742 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. July 23, 2012) (Kenney, J.), in a Commercial Lease Dispute/Complex Civil Action, Kucker, Marino, Winiarsky, & Bittens, LLP prevailed on motion for an Order that imposes negative inference on defendants for their spoliation of key documents allegedly lost or destroyed by them.
Co-authored by William D. Hummell, Esq., published for VIII International Congress of Arbitrators, Madrid, Spain, October 1987.
by Alan D. Kucker, Esq., printed in New York Law Journal on March 11, 1996.