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.
by Alan D. Kucker, Esq. and James R. Marino, printed in New York Law Journal on February 6, 1997.
by Alan D. Kucker, Esq., printed in New York Law Journal on June 9, 1997.
by Alan D. Kucker, Esq., printed in New York Law Journal on September 22, 1997.
On May 2, 2002, in Malafis et al. v. Shannon, Index No. L&T 101887/01 (Civ. Ct. Kings Co., May 2, 2002) (Marton, J.H.C.), a notable ruling was issued recognizing the right of an owner to recover a rent stabilized apartment for use by his son. Kucker, Marino, Winiarsky, & Bittens, LLP represented the landlord/owner in this owner-occupancy summary holdover case. Ultimately, the court held that the landlord had proved his prima facie case and owners were entitled to possession of rent stabilized apartment unit for use by owners’ son. The court determined the landlord established good faith since eviction was sought with honest intention and desire to gain possession of the subject premises for use by their son. The availability of other apartments renting for higher sums did not establish lack of good faith. Court also explained that owner was not required to occupy an apartment that was not controlled and thus diminish its income.
by Saul D. Bruh, Esq. and Alan D. Kucker, Esq., printed in New York Law Journal on March 23, 1998.