Every year hundreds of children living in poverty return to school ill equipped to strive in an academic environment. Kucker, Marino, Winiarsky, & Bittens, LLP believes that the key to success is preparation, and that providing these students with the supplies to succeed will help to prepare them both inside and outside of the classroom.
The law firm of Kucker, Marino, Winiarsky, & Bittens, LLP successfully defeated a claim posed by two wealthy New York City tenants that the court should reverse prior orders from the Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) which had luxury deregulated their apartments.
In the matter of Dixon v. 105 West 75th Street LLC, et al., Robert H. Berman, of Kucker, Marino, Winiarsky, & Bittens, LLP, successfully defeated a tenants claim that his apartment was subject to the Rent Stabilization Law. In a decision dated April 13, 2015, Justice Manuel J. Mendez granted the Defendants pre-Answer motion to dismiss the Complaint based upon documentary evidence. The Plaintiff tenant commenced the action seeking, inter alia, a declaration that he was a rent stabilized tenant. Prior to the tenant taking occupancy the owner added a roof top addition to the building, creating two duplex apartments out of the top floor units.
On December 9, 2014, James R. Marino served as a member of the presenting panel at the seminar conducted by the Community Housing Improvement Program (“CHIP”) titled “Primer on New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal: Forms, Filings, and Policy Updates”. Mr. Marino spoke for 40 minutes on various topics, including Preferential Rents and Rent Calculations under different circumstances. Jim took questions from the attendants and received positive feedback from the participants.
Kucker, Marino, Winiarsky, & Bittens LLP is proud to recognize that partner Nativ Winiarsky authored an article that was published in the New York Law Journal on July 16, 2014 titled “Attorney Fees and Real Estate: Discretion Has Its Limits.”
On April 11, 2003, in 320 West 13th Realty LLC v. Avanade Inc., 03 CV 1579 (JSR) (S.D.N.Y.), a federal district court rendered an important decision concerning motions to remand pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1447(c), the absence of complete diversity among the parties and the avoidance of duplicative litigation. The civil action began as a multi-million dollar commercial dispute between two plaintiffs, a New York limited liability company and a New York corporation, both represented by Kucker, Marino, Winiarsky, & Bittens, LLP (Kucker, Marino, Winiarsky, & Bittens), against defendant Avanade Inc., a Washington state corporation. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Rakoff, J.), ruled that the action must be returned to New York state court, as requested by Kucker, Marino, Winiarsky, & Bittens’s 28 U.S.C. §1447(c) motion for remand. In ruling for plaintiffs, the court agreed with Kucker, Marino, Winiarsky, & Bittens that Avanade’s joinder of a third-party defendant, Wolf Shevack, Inc., a New York corporation, under circumstances which compelled plaintiffs to raise their own third-party claims against WSI, made the third-party defendant a necessary party under Fed. Rule Civ. P. 19. Because the federal court did not have diversity jurisdiction to entertain plaintiffs’ third-party claims against WSI, the only court in which all of the parties’ claims and counterclaims could be heard was the New York state court. A remand order was issued, returning the action to state court.
In the matter of Georgetown Leasing, LLC: Adm. Rev. Dckt. No. CO-210001-RP, issued July 1, 2014, James R. Marino of Kucker, Marino, Winiarsky, & Bittens, LLP successfully defeated an occupant’s claim of succession by convincing the DHCR to apply logic announced by the Appellate Division, 1st Dept. in Third Avenue Lenox Terrace Associates v. Edwards, 91 AD 3d 352, 937 NUS 2d 41 (1st Dept., 2012). During the DHCR proceeding, it was determined that the tenant of record, who had never advised the Owner that she had vacated, moved out of the subject apartment over 3 years after the owner discovered that she had vacated.
Landlords are often insistent on procuring personal or other forms of guaranties when entering into a lease with a tenant. Unfortunately, however, while much time and effort is often spent on securing the form and material terms of the guaranty, landlords and their counsel are well advised to make similar efforts to take the necessary precautionary steps to ensure that the guaranty they worked so hard to acquire can indeed one day be enforced in the event of default by the principal debtor.
Gregg Kurlander, of counsel at Kucker, Marino, Winiarsky, & Bittens, recently appeared in the front page article of the New York Law Journal on June 5th, 2014. Gregg represents Windsor Plaza, LLC, the landlord in the case Windsor Plaza v. De Pinies.
On April 9, 2014, Abner Zelman conducted a presentation on the sovereign and diplomatic immunity of foreign diplomats and how to protect the rights of landlords when the issue of diplomatic immunity is involved. This presentation was held at the headquarters of the Real Estate Board of New York (REBNY).
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.