Results matter. Pyrrhic victories don’t.
As a Long Island-based commercial litigation firm, our trial lawyers at Barnes & Barnes, P.C. pursue complex business claims in the Commercial Division of the New York State Supreme Court, Federal Court and various arbitration forums (including AAA, JAMS, NAM, FINRA and ICC). Although the types of claims pursued are conventional (including breach of contract; business torts; fraud; shareholder and partnership disputes; breach of fiduciary duty; unfair competition; tortious interference; restrictive covenants; debtor/creditor claims; and federal and state statutory claims), the industries which we serve spans a virtually unlimited-in-scope range, including: financial services; medical; fashion; banking; energy; health care; manufacturing; mortgage; real estate; retail; dental; technology; insurance; agricultural; cyber; marine; legal; telecommunications, etc.
Although many of our clients are immersed in complex, and sometimes bet-the-company disputes, our decades of experience in Commercial Litigation permits us to deliver pragmatic strategies to achieve solutions which align with the client’s business objectives. In that regard, our trial lawyers achieve timely and relevant results on a cost-effective, results-oriented matter.
We invite you to explore our website and learn why our sage advice and tenacious advocacy constitutes a key client asset.
What to do When a New York Based Client Gets Sued Out of State
In E3 Innovation Inc., et al. v. DCL Techs. Inc., et al., No. CV-21-01141-PHX-DWL, 2021 WL 5741442 (D. Ariz. Dec. 2, 2021), the United States District Court for the District of Arizona recently dismissed an action for lack of personal jurisdiction against three...
PGA Capital LLC v. Toman – Defendants Do Not Have an Easement in Their Former Waterfront Lot
As seen in the New York Law Journal Upon the efiled documents numbered 37-50; 52-55; and 58, it is ORDERED that plaintiff PGA Capital LLC’s motion for an order pursuant to CPLR §3212 granting summary judgment pursuant to RPAPL 1501(1), canceling and discharging the...
An Alternative to Arbitration via Commercial Division Rule 9
In late 2018, the First Department’s decision in Daesang Corporation v. The NutraSweet Company, 167 A.D.3d 1, 85 N.Y.S.2d 6 (1st Dep’t 2018) refused to vacate a $100 million arbitration award premised upon a purported manifest disregard of law, confirming that: ...
Speed & Efficiency – The New Norm for Commercial Division Cases
With the recent adoption of new Commercial Division Rules, and several others proposed and open for public comment, practicing in the Commercial Division is likely to become more akin to Federal Courts, adding greater speed and efficiency to the litigation process. In...