Business & Complex Litigation

• Unfair Competition: Fending off the Competitor’s Legal Action

  We defeated an attempt by a competing restaurant franchise to use legal tactics to obtain proprietary information. A prominent chain of restaurants believed our client, a competing restaurant chain, had…
  Read More »

  Unfair Competition: Fending off the Competitor’s Legal Action
  We defeated an attempt by a competing restaurant franchise to use legal tactics to obtain proprietary information. A prominent chain of restaurants believed our client, a competing restaurant chain, had stolen its restaurant concept, including its recipes, design and layout. In an unusual tactic, the complaining company asked the court for permission to take a deposition of a witness before even filing a lawsuit -- a pre-action deposition. We knew that the competitor’s real intent was to poke around in our client’s operations and get company secrets, by claiming secrets had been stolen from them. Our legal battle over this issue was so vigorous that the competing company gave up and walked away from its legal action against our client.

• Fraud & Civil Rico: Trial Victory

  Hired on the eve of trial, we succeeded in getting all fraud and racketeering charges dismissed against an international franchisor and its CEO. A nationally known Washington DC attorney, who is a crusader…
  Read More »

  Fraud & Civil Rico: Trial Victory
  

  Hired on the eve of trial, we succeeded in getting all fraud and racketeering charges dismissed against an international franchisor and its CEO. A nationally known Washington DC attorney, who is a crusader for franchisees, targeted our client, a leader in its particular segment of an industry. The case was litigated for a number of years during which Plaintiffs pursued Civil RICO (racketeering) and fraud claims against the franchisor. The allegations involved the franchisor's sales practices used in persuading individuals to buy a retail store franchise. Not only were the Plaintiffs seeking a multi-million dollar award, the Federal Trade Commission was monitoring the case regarding the sales practices allegations.

  Quadrino Schwartz was hired to take over the case and conduct the trial. In a mere six weeks, we developed a strategy for the trial and briefed all of the complex legal issues under federal RICO and Georgia law. We conducted a two-week trial in federal court in which we took apart the Plaintiff's case and their experts and obtained a verdict completely absolving our clients -- the CEO and the entire company -- of all liability. The jury found no evidence of fraud or racketeering, and the complaint was dismissed.

• Investment Banking Litigation: Dispute Regarding Fees for Private Placement of Debt Securities

  Partner Richard Quadrino was hired to defend a company engaged in a national business that invests in municipal tax liens. The client was sued by a Wall Street investment bank over fees allegedly due for…
  Read More »

  Investment Banking Litigation: Dispute Regarding Fees for Private Placement of Debt Securities
  Partner Richard Quadrino was hired to defend a company engaged in a national business that invests in municipal tax liens. The client was sued by a Wall Street investment bank over fees allegedly due for raising funds for the client in various credit markets.

  The Wall Street investment bank had prepared a private placement memorandum and engaged in various activities, raising money for projects in various States. The parties disputed the scope of the investment bank's services, the nature of the services provided, and the applicability of the fee agreement to the ultimate temporary financing arranged.

  Mr. Quadrino represented the client in the Commercial Division of New York's Supreme Court. He successfully contended that the investment bank's services fell outside the scope of the investment bank's fee agreement. There were issues regarding equity linked subordinated unsecured debt securities, senior secured debt securities, and other financing structures, all as they related to the fee agreement of the parties. Mr. Quadrino's efforts resulted in a very favorable settlement for the client.

• Summary Judgment Obtained in Multiple Dram Shop Act Cases

  Four corporate entities owned by our client, a bar and restaurant, were the subjects of four separate lawsuits regarding serving alcohol at an establishment (Dram Shop Act) arising when a patron got into…
  Read More »

  Summary Judgment Obtained in Multiple Dram Shop Act Cases
  Four corporate entities owned by our client, a bar and restaurant, were the subjects of four separate lawsuits regarding serving alcohol at an establishment (Dram Shop Act) arising when a patron got into his car and ran down a crowd of people outside of the establishment. We reviewed the client’s insurance policies and were instrumental in convincing the insurer to defend that entity, which may have held an interest in the premises. After discovery was completed, we moved for summary judgment in all four lawsuits for the remaining three entities. We convinced the court that one entity, while it may have employed some security at the premises, could not be held liable under the Dram Shop Act since the Act only applies to those serving alcohol and the security personnel were not servers of alcohol. We were also successful in convincing the court that the remaining two entities we defended had no relationship to the premises and were improperly named as parties in the lawsuits. As a result, the lawsuits were dismissed against all three of those entities. The only entity that remains a defendant in the lawsuits in the one that we convinced the insurer to defend. The lawsuits are still pending against that remaining entity.

• Obtained Summary Judgment for Client Surety – Absolute Liability for Indemnification

  Quadrino Schwartz attorney Brad Schlossberg obtained summary judgment on behalf of a client surety for indemnification pursuant to a surety agreement. The defendant entered into several contracts with…
  Read More »

  Obtained Summary Judgment for Client Surety – Absolute Liability for Indemnification
  Quadrino Schwartz attorney Brad Schlossberg obtained summary judgment on behalf of a client surety for indemnification pursuant to a surety agreement. The defendant entered into several contracts with the Town of Schaghticoke to construct water transmission and distribution main lines along New York State Route 40. One of the requirements of the contracts was the filing of performance bonds with the town guaranteeing the performance of the contractor. When the contractor was held in default under the contracts and terminated by the town, the surety stepped in and financed the completion of the projects. Upon a motion for summary judgment, the Federal Court for the Northern District of New York held that the obligation of the contractor to indemnify the surety was absolute and that it was irrelevant whether the contractor actually defaulted on the underlying contracts.

• Fraud & Breach of Contract:  Business Breakup

  We completely removed our client from a complex, lengthy trial when a former partner destroyed evidence that made a fair trial impossible. Our client, a CPA and a lawyer, was sued for fraud and theft in…
  Read More »

  Fraud & Breach of Contract:  Business Breakup
  We completely removed our client from a complex, lengthy trial when a former partner destroyed evidence that made a fair trial impossible. Our client, a CPA and a lawyer, was sued for fraud and theft in connection with a failed business relationship. During the lawsuit, it was learned that the plaintiff deleted financial information from the company's computer system that we believed was crucial to our client's defense.

  We successfully convinced the court that our client would never be able to get a fair trial because of the destroyed evidence. With the jury ready to hear opening statements, the judge dismissed our client from the case, while all of the other parties proceeded through a lengthy trial.

• Oil Spill Case – Won Insurer Reimbursement for Client Property Owners and Tenants

  Quadrino Schwartz attorney Brad Schlossberg obtained summary judgment against an insurer for the defense costs of an expensive year-long case brought by the State of New York against several owners of…
  Read More »

  Oil Spill Case – Won Insurer Reimbursement for Client Property Owners and Tenants
  Quadrino Schwartz attorney Brad Schlossberg obtained summary judgment against an insurer for the defense costs of an expensive year-long case brought by the State of New York against several owners of real property and their gasoline station tenants for the costs of remediation of a gasoline spill. The source of the spill was unknown but it was alleged by the State to have been discharged from several gasoline stations, including the gasoline station on the real property owned by Mr. Schlossberg’s client. Because the source of the spill was questionable, the insurer denied coverage on the grounds that there was no “confirmed release” as required under the terms of the policy covering the underground storage tanks located on the premises. Mr. Schlossberg successfully obtained coverage upon the grounds that the duty to defend was greater than the duty to indemnify and the insurer had to provide a defense if there was the possibility of liability under the policy. After trial, the insurer was required to indemnify the insured for any loss assigned to it.

• Fraud Case Against an Attorney: Verdict Dismissing the Case

  An attorney sought Quadrino Schwartz to conduct a trial against him in which he was accused of engaging in a fraudulent real estate scheme. From the beginning, he had handled the case himself, but when…
  Read More »

  Fraud Case Against an Attorney: Verdict Dismissing the Case
  An attorney sought Quadrino Schwartz to conduct a trial against him in which he was accused of engaging in a fraudulent real estate scheme. From the beginning, he had handled the case himself, but when it came to the trial, he wanted Richard Quadrino.

  There were several experts, mortgage brokers, and other lawyers as witnesses. After evaluating the cast of characters and the nature of the case, Quadrino first decided that the case was better evaluated by a judge, rather than a jury. He successfully switched tactics, late in the game, and got the case to be heard by a judge.

  After filing a persuasive legal brief prepared by the team members at Quadrino Schwartz, Mr. Quadrino set out to dismantle the case against his client. Through various techniques he was able to convince the judge that the entire case needed to be thrown out. The judge wrote an opinion that was featured on the front page of the New York Law Journal.

• Damages Obtained for Franchisor

  After obtaining summary judgment for an international franchisor client, we took the damages phase to trial. Partner Richard Quadrino conducted the trial. The Defendant raised numerous legal issues that…
  Read More »

  Damages Obtained for Franchisor
  After obtaining summary judgment for an international franchisor client, we took the damages phase to trial. Partner Richard Quadrino conducted the trial.

  The Defendant raised numerous legal issues that he contended precluded an award of damages. Quadrino successfully fought back on the legal issues, effectively cross examined the Defendant, discredited the accounting tabulations by the adversary, and convinced the federal judge to award all of the damages sought by our client.

• Shareholder Breakup: Fair Share Obtained in Buyout

  In the middle of a lengthy litigation regarding the breakup of surgeons in their practice, one of the doctors discharged his lawyer and hired Quadrino Schwartz. Our client's former partners claimed that…
  Read More »

  Shareholder Breakup: Fair Share Obtained in Buyout
  In the middle of a lengthy litigation regarding the breakup of surgeons in their practice, one of the doctors discharged his lawyer and hired Quadrino Schwartz.

  Our client's former partners claimed that there was no dollar value to his interest in the surgical practice. Partner Richard Quadrino vigorously pursued the case, reconstructing computer records from years earlier, showing the value of the receivables due to the practice at the time of the client's departure. He also demonstrated to the court that the other side was hiding information that was critical to the case.

  After a few extended battles, Mr. Quadrino convinced the attorneys for the other doctors to recommend a large settlement. They agreed, paying our client hundreds of thousands of dollars for the buyout of his interest in the company.

• Commercial Real Estate Settlement:  The Case That Could Not Be Settled

  After battling for years -- with each side calling the police on the other -- we were retained in a hotly contested dispute between partners who owned a commercial building together. Numerous financial…
  Read More »

  Commercial Real Estate Settlement:  The Case That Could Not Be Settled
  After battling for years -- with each side calling the police on the other -- we were retained in a hotly contested dispute between partners who owned a commercial building together.

  Numerous financial issues existed, as well as disputes as to the relative value of the interests of the parties in the entity that owned the building. Making matters worse, our client was a tenant of his partner and landlord tenant issues were also being litigated. Fraud was alleged against our client, and the tempers ran high -- all the time.

  Despite the intractability of the parties and the other lawyer, our team succeeded in obtaining a very good result for the client. We "locked the door" in a marathon mediation session (8 hours) and got it done. Case closed.

• LLC Buyout Litigation:  Favorable Settlement

  We were hired to obtain a fair buyout of our client's share in an LLC and a related corporation in which he had a one third interest. His former partners were refusing to place any value on either interest.…
  Read More »

  LLC Buyout Litigation:  Favorable Settlement
  We were hired to obtain a fair buyout of our client's share in an LLC and a related corporation in which he had a one third interest. His former partners were refusing to place any value on either interest.

  Our client, a surgeon, had started up an ambulatory surgical center and helped grow the surgical practice, we had been converted into an LLC by a prior attorney. When he departed the two entities and the other partners refused to buy him out, we commenced both a shareholder derivative lawsuit and a case for a buyout of the client's interest in the LLC.

  Partners Quadrino and O'Mahony litigated the cases as a team. We identified loopholes in the LLC law that have yet to be addressed by any court in New York state. The issues regarding the loopholes and the factual contentions regarding our client's reason for departing were all in great dispute.

  After a series of battles, the law firm on the other side was fired and a new firm was brought in. After battling with the new firm and conducting two mediations, we succeeded in obtaining a very sizable recovery for our client.

• Summary Judgment and Successful Appeal in $500,000 Debt Guarantee Case

  Mr. Schlossberg obtained summary judgment on an action to enforce a guarantee on a $500,000 debt owed to a distributor of petroleum products. The guarantor tries to argue that the debt was forgiven due…
  Read More »

  Summary Judgment and Successful Appeal in $500,000 Debt Guarantee Case
  Mr. Schlossberg obtained summary judgment on an action to enforce a guarantee on a $500,000 debt owed to a distributor of petroleum products. The guarantor tries to argue that the debt was forgiven due to a condition in the underlying contract, but Mr. Schlossberg proved to the court that the underlying condition never occurred and thus the debt was still owed. He also obtained attorneys’ fees for the client under the contract and successfully represented the client in the defendant’s appeal. On appeal, the court upheld the lower court’s grant of summary judgment in the client’s favor.

• Toxic Waste:  Product Liability

  We protected our client, a manufacturer of measuring equipment, from being a part of a large lawsuit when others were to blame for a toxic spill. When an oil delivery company overfilled an oil tank at…
  Read More »

  Toxic Waste:  Product Liability
  We protected our client, a manufacturer of measuring equipment, from being a part of a large lawsuit when others were to blame for a toxic spill.

  When an oil delivery company overfilled an oil tank at a local school, an enormous spill ensued, causing substantial toxic contamination, which spread to a local inlet and bay. Our client manufactured the gauge located inside the oil tank that indicates the level of oil contained in the tank. The school district sued our client, the oil delivery company, and the engineering firm that designed the area surrounding the oil tank. We demonstrated to the school district that our client’s gauge was fully operational and that the other parties were negligent, resulting in a very favorable settlement for our client.

• Partnership Litigation:  Recusal of Judge

  We protected our client when his ex-partner's best friend was the only judge in the county. All politics are local, and sometimes politics gets in the way of fairness. We were called in to handle a partnership…
  Read More »

  Partnership Litigation:  Recusal of Judge
  We protected our client when his ex-partner's best friend was the only judge in the county.

  All politics are local, and sometimes politics gets in the way of fairness. We were called in to handle a partnership dispute concerning the ownership of two upstate New York diners and joint property holdings. The case was before a powerful judge who was allied with our client’s former partner. No attorney in this upstate county would represent him, fearing future repercussions from the judge.

  Our client was on the verge of having his business shut down. We stepped in with an aggressive litigation strategy, commenced by bringing a motion to have the judge disqualified from the case. The motion succeeded, saving our client’s business. We subsequently obtained a favorable settlement for the client after obtaining a level playing field.

• Obtained Dismissal of Breach of Contract Suit Against a School District

  Brad Schlossberg successfully defended a school district on an appeal in an action by an employee claiming breach of contract. The Appellate Division upheld the lower court finding that the employee could…
  Read More »

  Obtained Dismissal of Breach of Contract Suit Against a School District
  Brad Schlossberg successfully defended a school district on an appeal in an action by an employee claiming breach of contract. The Appellate Division upheld the lower court finding that the employee could not maintain a cause of action directly against the school district. According to the court, the employee was under a union contract that prohibiting him from proceeding against the school district on his own absent a finding that a demand was made upon the union to represent the employee and an allegation that the union failed in its duty to provide the employee with fair representation.

• Seizure of Assets—TRO Dissolved

  We proved to a federal judge that her order to freeze our client's assets was wrong, and succeeded in having her immediately vacate the order. Our client was sued by a group of nationally known insurance…
  Read More »

  Seizure of Assets—TRO Dissolved
  We proved to a federal judge that her order to freeze our client's assets was wrong, and succeeded in having her immediately vacate the order.

  Our client was sued by a group of nationally known insurance companies for fraud and racketeering. At the very beginning of the lawsuit, without notifying any of the other parties in the proceedings, the insurance companies convinced a federal judge to freeze our client’s assets. This action could have destroyed his business.

  We were in court the very next day to vigorously challenge both the insurance company and the judge, knowing that our adversaries had taken this action without good reason.

  Even when the federal judge told us that she would not change her mind the day after issuing this order, we knew we were right - - and we succeeded in defending our client. We convinced the judge to change her ruling and she lifted the freeze that same day, freeing millions of dollars for our client and allowing his business to continue its normal operations.

• Court Awarded Surety Full Reimbursement of $150,000 from the Defaulting Contractor

  Brad Schlossberg obtained summary judgment on behalf of a performance bond surety against a contractor whose bid to complete a project was accepted by the surety. When the contractor for the replacement…
  Read More »

  Court Awarded Surety Full Reimbursement of $150,000 from the Defaulting Contractor
  Brad Schlossberg obtained summary judgment on behalf of a performance bond surety against a contractor whose bid to complete a project was accepted by the surety. When the contractor for the replacement and repair of sidewalks in Manhattan was held in default by the City of New York, the performance bond surety was obligated to complete the job. In furtherance of this obligation, the surety placed the completion of the job out for bid. The defendant submitted the winning bid, which was accepted by the surety. The defendant then sought to withdraw its bid and did not complete the contract. Thereafter, the surety negotiated a settlement with the City of New York for $150,000 to release it from its obligation to complete the contract and sued the winning bidder for breach of contract to recover the amount of the settlement. The Court correctly held, on Mr. Schlossberg’s motion for summary judgment brought on behalf of the surety, that the offer and acceptance of the bid created a binding contract and that the surety was entitled to reimbursement from the defendant of the $150,000 the surety paid to settle with the City.

• Obtained Stays Preventing Gasoline Distributor/Franchisors from Evicting the Tenant/Franchisees

  In two separate cases, Brad Schlossberg obtained a stay of an attempt by a gasoline distributor/ franchisor to evict a tenant/franchisee from a gasoline station when the distributor/franchisor…
  Read More »

  Obtained Stays Preventing Gasoline Distributor/Franchisors from Evicting the Tenant/Franchisees
  In two separate cases, Brad Schlossberg obtained a stay of an attempt by a gasoline distributor/ franchisor to evict a tenant/franchisee from a gasoline station when the distributor/franchisor failed to offer the franchisee the right of first refusal under the Federal Petroleum Marketing Practices Act and otherwise failed to comply with its obligations under the Act.

• Real Estate Litigation:  Motion to Dismiss Granted

  We prevented a harassment lawsuit from being used to halt a successful real estate sale. A real estate developer purchased an old house in an exclusive neighborhood with the intention of knocking it down…
  Read More »

  Real Estate Litigation:  Motion to Dismiss Granted
  We prevented a harassment lawsuit from being used to halt a successful real estate sale.

  A real estate developer purchased an old house in an exclusive neighborhood with the intention of knocking it down and building a new home. The closing was halted when it was discovered that a neighbor had filed a last-minute lawsuit to stop the transaction. The neighbor had signed an informal agreement with the previous owner - and was now seeking to take over the property. We immediately filed an extensive motion to dismiss the case and the court granted the motion, allowing the real estate transaction to proceed.

• Tax Litigation

  We stopped a town from imposing an unlawful tax on our client, a townhouse community. A large townhouse community on Long Island discovered that the town was charging it thousands of dollars for refuse…
  Read More »

  Tax Litigation
  We stopped a town from imposing an unlawful tax on our client, a townhouse community. A large townhouse community on Long Island discovered that the town was charging it thousands of dollars for refuse collection services that the townhouse community could not use. When the discrepancy was brought to the town's attention, it refused to stop charging the tax. The development was paying for a private carting company and paying additional money every year to the town for a service it didn’t get and didn’t want.

  The community lodged a formal protest, but the town refused to stop collecting the tax. We prosecuted a lawsuit and won. Our client no longer pays taxes on services it doesn’t use, and the town was ordered to pay a substantial tax refund.