Success Stories

Barnes & Barnes represented the individual owners of a mortgage bank who were sued for more than $4,000,000 for breach of contract and ancillary business tort claims. After answering but prior to engaging in substantive discovery, we appeared at a pre-motion conference with the assigned Commercial Division Justice, wherein we convinced the Court that the claims against our clients were without legal merit. In turn, the Court strongly “suggested” that the plaintiff’s counsel voluntarily dismiss all claims against the Barnes & Barnes clients (which it did the next day), thereby avoiding defense costs for a lengthy and complex commercial litigation and the possibility of personal liability. The benefit: aggressive advocacy avoids needless defense fees and potential personal liability.

Plaintiff (ex-wife) and defendant (ex-husband) were married for more than 35 years and acquired a residential property in Nassau County, plus three commercial properties in Queens during the course of their marriage. Each commercial property was titled in the husband’s name exclusively. The parties divorced several years ago and executed a rudimentary divorce agreement which did not adequately protect the ex-wife’s interest in the subject properties.

In April 2007 the ex-wife learned that the ex-husband had sold the first commercial property for more than $2,000,000. The ex-wife was supposed to receive one-half of the proceeds upon the sale of any property. Upon learning of the sale and confronting the ex-husband, the ex-husband told his ex-wife that he could not afford to pay to her the ex-wife’s share of the proceeds and likewise subtly threatened that if the ex-wife made any waves about it, it was likely that she would receive no proceeds whatsoever. The ex-wife was referred to Barnes & Barnes to secure her position and recover her share of the proceeds.

In a matter of days, Barnes & Barnes identified the location of the subject proceeds; commenced a plenary action against the ex-husband for breach of contract, conversion, constructive trust, etc.; and achieved an ex parte temporary restraining order freezing the proceeds pending resolution of the ex-wife’s claim to her share of the same. After the ex-husband/defendant retained counsel, we litigated the matter, ultimately resulting in a complete victory for the plaintiff/ex-wife, including but not limited to reimbursement for interest due on her share of the proceeds. Barnes & Barnes recovered more than $1,750,000 in cash and property for its client and the title to the parties’ residential property has been vested solely in the plaintiff/ex-wife’s name.

Barnes & Barnes represented a Michigan-based furniture manufacturer in its pursuit against a Long Island defendant that failed to pay for custom furniture received and retained by the defendant. The furniture had been delivered pursuant to credit terms requested and entered into by a corporate defendant. Unbeknownst to the plaintiff, shortly before delivery, the defendant’s principal owners abandoned the existing corporate defendant, created a new entity at the same business location and accepted the plaintiff’s goods under the guise of the defendant’s abandoned corporation.

Upon re-argument of the plaintiff’s pre-deposition motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff obtained personal judgments against the individual shareholders of ACT Telecom. Plaintiff successfully argued that the individuals’ act of accepting the goods under the guise of a then-defunct corporation rendered these shareholders personally liable for the debt. In doing so, Barnes & Barnes relied upon various public records to expose the individual defendants’ malfeasance. The matter was thereafter settled for more than 100% of the plaintiff’s damages, in which the excess sum offset the plaintiff’s counsel fees.

The benefit: Barnes & Barnes attained personal judgments upon the defendant’s individual shareholders without the need for conducting depositions or extensive discovery methods. This tactic accelerated the Court’s intervention, proved to be cost-effective for the plaintiff and compelled the defendants to satisfy a valid debt despite the fact that the individual defendants did not sign a personal guarantee.

Barnes & Barnes represented East End homeowners who were sued by a real estate broker for damages in excess of $160,000 related to the purported breach of a brokerage commission agreement. In the spring of 2003, the homeowners rented their East End home for two weeks to a certain family. The brokerage commission agreement contained a clause that sought to subject the homeowners to liability for a 6% commission in the event that the homeowners ever sold their house to the same family that rented the house in 2003.

Fortuitously, in 2006, approximately three years after the rental, the homeowners sold their house to the same family that rented the house in the spring of 2003. The brokerage learned of the sale and sued, despite the fact that it was not the procuring clause of the sale. After the exchange of documents, but before depositions, the Court granted our motion seeking to dismiss the complaint, ruling in our clients’ favor and dismissing with prejudice the $160,000 complaint.

The plaintiffs, soon after purchasing their first residence in Queens County, were confronted by their next-door neighbor’s claim of ownership to their common driveway by virtue of the doctrine of adverse possession. Specifically, the defendant claimed ownership to a portion of the plaintiff’s driveway by alleging that the defendant’s predecessors paved, maintained and used the driveway for more than 30 years.

The plaintiff initiated an action in the Queens County Supreme Court to quiet title, for trespass and for private nuisance. The defendant counterclaimed for adverse possession, prescriptive easement and for encroachment. After the parties completed discovery, we successfully moved for summary judgment, dismissing the defendant’s counterclaims. The Court agreed with our position that the defendant failed as a matter of law to establish the critical elements of an adverse possession claim. Notably, the Court summarily concluded that the defendant could not prove that the defendant’s predecessors continuously and exclusively used the driveway in a hostile fashion. Likewise, the Court dismissed the defendant’s remaining counterclaims. Finally, the Court granted the plaintiff’s claims for trespass and private nuisance.

Following entry of the Supreme Court’s Order, the defendant filed an appeal with the Appellate Division and continued to use the driveway in contravention of the decision. Facing contempt of court, the defendant stipulated to withdraw his appeal and immediately thereafter removed his property from the plaintiffs’ driveway.

Barnes & Barnes represented a car dealership which was sued in a declaratory judgment action in connection with its purported rental of a vehicle which was involved in a four-car accident. The car dealership’s various insurance carriers engaged counsel in an attempt to avoid its defense and indemnity obligation pursuant to the various policies issued to the dealership. After a framed issue hearing, the Court initially ruled against our dealership client, ruling in a written opinion that the carriers had no obligation to defend/indemnify the dealership for the three lawsuits which surfaced after the accident.

After filing a notice of appeal and submitting a motion to re-argue the adverse decision, the Supreme Court Justice reversed himself, ruling that the carrier in fact failed to effectuate a proper disclaimer of coverage. The result is that the dealership client achieved insurance carrier defense and indemnity for three separate lawsuits filed in Queens County, which likely saved the dealership in excess of $250,000.

The plaintiff was the holder of several promissory notes that were executed by individuals and a corporation. After the defendants collectively defaulted on the notes, we filed an action for the plaintiff in the Commercial Division of the Nassau County Supreme Court, utilizing an expedited procedure known as summary judgment in lieu of complaint. That provision of the CPLR permits a plaintiff to proceed to judgment quickly when the action seeks recovery on an “instrument for the payment for money only.” Although the defendants opposed the application and also filed an Order to Show Cause challenging the Court’s jurisdiction, the Court awarded our client a six-figure judgment, attorneys’ fees and pre-judgment interest from the date of the breach of the promissory notes against the defendant corporation and the individuals.

The benefit: expedited relief for the client without an extensive litigation, resulting in a judgment against the corporation and, more importantly, a judgment against the shareholders individually.

The plaintiffs entered into a contract of sale to convey their real property to the defendant, who provided a down payment for the purchase of the subject property. The Contract of Sale’s “On or About Date” was December 1, 2002. Between November 5, 2002 and January 8, 2003, counsel for the parties continued to discuss an issue that arose when the title report arrived, specifically, whether a certificate of completion would be provided for the deck and/or pool. There was no overt and unequivocal documentation which indicated that the plaintiffs refused to provide a certificate of occupancy for the pool and/or deck. Neither party declared that time was of the essence. Indeed, as of January 8, 2003, according to counsel for defendant, the issue of whether the plaintiffs were required to provide a certificate of completion for the pool and/or deck was still “unresolved.”

After the telephone conversation between counsel for the parties on January 8, 2003, the defendant unilaterally declared in a January 9, 2003 correspondence that “the Contract of Sale is void, null and of no further effect.” Accordingly, on behalf of the plaintiff, we filed suit against the defendant to recover for the defendant’s breach of the contract of sale. The Court agreed with our position that the defendant’s cancellation of the contract was premature and inappropriate. Accordingly, the Court awarded the plaintiffs summary judgment, recovering from the former purchaser the down payment.

The benefit: without extensive litigation and while simultaneously selling the property to another, Seller recovered the initial down payment as liquidated damages to offset damages they sustained by the delay incident to Purchaser’s wrongful repudiation.

The plaintiff filed suit against our New York publicly-traded client in Florida state court for breach of contract for a television production project. After objecting to the basis of jurisdiction in Florida state courts, we filed a petition for removal to the federal court for the Southern District of Florida in West Palm Beach, arguing that the defendant had a right to litigate the matter in federal district court premised upon diversity jurisdiction.

After the service of various discovery demands, and before the commencement of depositions, the plaintiff agreed to voluntarily dismiss the action in its entirety with prejudice and without compensation.

The benefit: by demonstrating resolve to the plaintiff’s counsel regarding the client’s ability to appoint its regular New York counsel to litigate in Florida, the plaintiff was compelled to confront its weak case and discontinue the matter in its entirety.

We were appointed by the general liability carrier for a general contractor for a construction project who was sued by a plaintiff who was allegedly injured at the job site on his third day of work. The plaintiff, 25 years old at the time of the injury, allegedly sustained severe personal injuries requiring multiple surgeries; in addition to the personal injury pain and suffering damages, the plaintiff asserted lost wages claims in the high five figures, resulting in a conservative valuation of the claim in excess of $300,000.

The plaintiff asserted causes of action against the defendant premised upon general negligence, Labor Law § 200, Labor Law §240(1) and Labor Law§ 241(6). After a protracted litigation wherein Barnes & Barnes attorneys also defended the school district and the construction manager, we filed our motion for summary judgment. The court granted the vast majority of the motion, dismissing the general negligence, Labor Law § 200 cause of action, Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action, and four of the five regulations that the plaintiff relied upon to establish its Labor Law § 241(6) cause of action. After the decision, the plaintiff maintained only a thread of potential liability against the defendants. In that light, we consummated a nominal settlement on the eve of jury selection and trial that netted the plaintiff only $15,000.

The benefit: in conjunction with the insurance carrier, our aggressive investigation of the facts underlying the plaintiff’s claim, and the incorporation of that information into a pre-trial motion for summary judgment, resulted in the dismissal of the vast majority of the plaintiff’s action and settlement of a potential six-figure claim for a relatively nominal sum.

The plaintiff filed suit against the City of New York and our client, a property owner, for injuries she sustained when she tripped and fell on a purportedly defective sidewalk in Queens. The defendant, who owned a mixed-use property in the City of New York, approached us for representation after his general liability insurance carrier denied coverage for defense and indemnity. The defendant, who owned the property personally and without the benefit of any corporate protections, would have been personally liable for any judgment obtained by the injured plaintiff.

After the completion of discovery, we moved for summary judgment seeking to dismiss the complaint and the City’s cross-claims on the basis that the plaintiff failed to establish that the defendant enjoyed a special-use benefit of the sidewalk. Over the objection of the plaintiff, the Court ruled in our favor, indicating that the plaintiff failed to controvert the evidence that we presented to establish a prima facie right to summary judgment dismissing the case.

The benefit: extensive pre-deposition preparation permitted Barnes & Barnes counsel to expose the weakness in the plaintiff’s case and convince the Court to dismiss the same on summary judgment.