Tenant Ordered to Cease Defamatory Statements

Kucker and Bruh, LLP won a defamation action on behalf of a fellow attorney, the court appointed Receiver in the matter of Village Realty Holdings, Inc. v. 135 West 13, LLC et al. The case commenced when a holdover tenant in the subject building contacted the Better Business Bureau and the Departmental Disciplinary Committee in an effort to coerce the Receiver to act in violation of her duties. In addition, the tenant wrote slanderous reviews about the Receiver on a popular website offering attorney ratings, reviews and disciplinary records. Among other inaccuracies, the disgruntled tenant alleged that the Receiver’s role as the court appointed Receiver to the apartment building constituted an attorney client relationship between the Receiver and the tenant, even after being made fully aware and knowing that no such relationship ever existed.

Court Declines to Re-Regulate Apartment after Deregulation Occurs

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 tenant’s claim to a declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, lease reformation, rent overcharge, fraud and attorney fees.

In Dixon, the plaintiff alleged that his apartment was still subject to the Rent Stabilization Law due to a failure to properly deregulate the apartment from rent stabilization regulations coverage.

Kucker Marino Winiarsky & Bittens, LLP Teams Up With Volunteers of America!

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.

Click here to read more.

Landlord Proves Deregulation of Apartment

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.

James Marino Conducts Presentation at CHIP

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.

320 West 13th Realty LLC v. Avanade Inc.

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.

James Marino Defeats Occupant’s Claim of Succession

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.

Nativ Winiarsky New York Law Journal Article “Not Everything Is Guaranteed in Landlord-Tenant Guaranties”

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.