Case Results - Civil Litigation Attorney NYC | The Law Office of Steven R. Sutton

Track Record of
Success

NYC Litigation & Landlord Tenant Lawyer

In the Supreme Court of the State of New York, and in the Civil Court of the City of New York, Litigation Attorney Steven Sutton has a steady track record of stellar results for his clients. Our firm is able to take on any type of real estate or landlord tenant issue so do not hesitate to call and schedule your consultation. Whether you are facing a landlord/tenant dispute, a breach of contract, or any real estate or business transaction, we may be able to help. Contact a New York City litigation attorney from Law Office of Steven R. Sutton today to discuss your case.

Victory on Appeal in Appellate Division

On March 3, 2015, the Sutton Firm scored a major victory in the Appellate Division, First Department, who affirmed all rulings made by Justice Ramos in the Supreme Court, New York County, in a case involving fraudulent conveyances by a purchaser of merchandise, who transferred their entire business over to a new company to avoid payment. The Judgment was essentially based on an email agreement by the purchaser to pay for the goods upon issuance of a specified credit, which was in fact issued. Nevertheless, the purchaser reneged on the agreement and made the fraudulent conveyance of the entire business to evade payment. The defendants claimed a wild allegation that they were allowed to ship the merchandise to their ultimate customer and to rely on the inspection on the inspection by the customer, which they called an “accommodation”, and for which there was not a shred of supporting evidence. The individual principals of the purchaser company were held personally liable for violation of Section 130 of the General Business Law, based on their issuance of purchase orders in the name of a non-existent company/entity, for which there was no doing business certificate filed, in violation of the Statute. Cases have held that violation of this Statute with knowledge that the name was unregistered would result in personal liability. And so, the Appellate Division affirmed this ruling against the individual defendants as well. Legal fees were awarded based on the Debtor and Creditor Law and the fraudulent conveyance at a time when the original companies were insolvent; and so, this ruling was also affirmed. The result was a six-figure recovery by the Sutton Firm’s client, the manufacturer/shipper of the merchandise, affirmed by a unanimous Court.

Success in Business Litigation

The Law Office of Steven R. Sutton scores a major two-punch six figure T.K.O. Victory against a recalcitrant debtor, first, by getting a judgment against the individuals by reason of their violation of General Business Law Section 130, namely, they did business under and on behalf of a non-existent entity, by using an assumed name without doing any filing of a Certificate of Doing Business for that name. Under controlling caselaw, this made them personally liable. The Defendants erroneously contended that the only negative consequence of their violation of the law should be that they cannot sue in New York State Court. This contention was blanketly rejected by Justice Charles E. Ramos, the Senior Commercial Division Judge in the Supreme Court, New York County. Second, based on the Defendants’ fraudulent conveyance of their business to a new company, without any consideration, in an attempt to defraud the plaintiff, the Court allowed a motion for legal fees under Debtor and Creditor Law Section 276-a.

Success in Real Estate and Commercial Litigation

In the Supreme Court, representing a Judgment Creditor, in supplementary proceedings held in a collection matter, Mr. Sutton was successful in extracting a favorable settlement from one judgment debtor, in the context of a hearing held to hold the debtor in contempt.

Litigation Over License/Lease Agreement

On March 11, 2015, the Sutton Firm secures a major success in favor of a commercial tenant/licensee and against a billion dollar company who was its Landlord. The tenant/licensee had been there for seven years under a “Commercial License Agreement” that called itself a “revocable license” and the Landlord claimed it had the right to terminate the license “at will”. The Sutton Firm, represented by Steven R. Sutton, Esq., before Justice Eileen Bransten in the Supreme Court, New York County, successfully argued that cases and legal precedents in the First Department of this State’s Appellate Division favored a preliminary injunction in favor of the licensee/tenant pending a determination as to the nature of the occupancy agreement. This analysis is based, as the cases and precedents hold, not on the title of the subject agreement, but on an analysis of its terms and provisions. Here, the tenant/licensee had a fixed term of ten years followed by a five-year renewal, had fixed rentals stated in the Agreement and had exclusive possession and use of a portion of the total office space encompassing an entire floor of a major office building in lower Manhattan. The Court, who had previously granted a temporary restraining order in the tenant/licensee’s favor, granted the preliminary injunction restraining any summary eviction proceeding by the Landlord and required that only a nominal bond be posted, which would not be too cumbersome for the tenant/licensee. Since the value of the space at the present rental values would probably be double or triple the stated rental amounts as set forth in the parties’ occupancy agreement, the tenant/licensee, with eight more years to go on the present agreement, saved itself a small fortune in far larger rentals that would probably have crippled or destroyed the company.

Free Consultations Available

Contact Our Offices

Whether you have questions or you’re ready to get started, our legal team is ready to help. Complete our form below or call us at (718) 395-6755.

Track Record of Success