Track Record of Success

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.

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.

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.

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.

In a landlord tenant proceeding, representing a commercial Tenant, Mr. Sutton was successful first in having a warrant of eviction vacated, and then having the Landlord's case fully dismissed following a traverse hearing relating to the validity of the service of process.

In a landlord tenant proceeding, representing a commercial Tenant, Mr. Sutton was successful in having the Landlord's case dismissed on grounds of defects in the Notices served on the Tenant.

In a landlord tenant proceeding, representing a commercial Tenant, Mr. Sutton was successful in negotiating a settlement allowing the Tenant the time to run a going out of business sale, including options to stay in the premises for two more months at a stated fee.

The Law Office of Steven R. Sutton is located in Manhattan and serves clients throughout New York City (NYC) including Manhattan, the Bronx, Brooklyn, Staten Island, and Queens. We serve clients in counties such as Nassau County, Suffolk County, Westchester County, New York.

The Law Firm of Steven R. Sutton scored another significant settlement from a large real estate developer/builder in New York City, in lower Manhattan, in favor of a rent stabilized tenant. The Sutton Firm filed two different appeals and peppered the Landlord with motions related to the substance of the rent-stabilized tenant’s rights and pitfalls in the Landlord’s case, as well as seeking discovery of documents and information from the Landlord, which delayed the matter’s coming to trial for approximately a year. The settlement for an undisclosed sum is sufficient to allow the tenant to re-locate to a luxury apartment that she intends to purchase in Manhattan.

Recently, in the end of 2017, we represented a medical office in Brooklyn, New York, and the adjoining property owner, building a school, applied to the Court to allow them to place physical structures and other encumbrances on our client’s property during the course of their development and building. We aggressively represented the medical office in the litigation and in negotiations of this license agreement, and were able to limit the extent to which the developer would be allowed to place a construction fence on our client’s property as well as any other intrusion of the client’s property. We took a strong stand against any underpinning under the client’s property and were also successful in obtaining a fair and reasonable license fee to be paid to the medical office during the construction as well as payment for our legal fees from the other side. Overall, and based on thorough legal research of the legal precedents, the medical office was pleased with the result with less legal fees even though a hard-fought litigation may have given them more advantages.

We recently successfully represented a Landlord in a dispute with a difficult residential tenant. By aggressively crafting a Stipulation of Settlement on strong and favorable terms, we were able to save the client thousands in unnecessary litigation costs. Certainly, there were areas of dispute that could have caused the parties to litigate their disagreements, but by using common sense, we were able to guide the client to avoid escalating their legal costs in favor of a quicker and less expensive resolution of their problem. For this office, that is a win!

In the Supreme Court, representing a Store Tenant, in an action against the Landlord for the return of the security deposit upon the cancellation of the Lease, Mr. Sutton was successful in securing a favorable settlement for the Tenant.

In the Supreme Court, representing a real estate salesperson in an action by a former employer, a real estate broker, for alleged theft of clients and misappropriation of business, Mr. Sutton was successful in negotiating a discontinuance of the case without any payment whatsoever.

In the Supreme Court, representing the Owner of a building in an action by a former contractor, Mr. Sutton was successful in negotiation a favorable settlement with respect to a portion of the contractor's claims and then having the balance of those claims referred to arbitration.

Essentially, in a commercial case in Nassau County Supreme Court, commenced in or about October 2020, the plaintiff came in aggressively asking the Court, via heavy motion practice, for the appointment of a receiver of the business and its assets, and for a preliminary injunction, the Sutton Firm was victorious from the outset handily defeating the plaintiff’s motions and successfully, on a cross-motion on behalf of the Sutton Firm’s client, the Defendant, securing the dismissal of the plaintiff’s cause of action for a permanent injunction, on the ground that there was an adequate remedy at law for money damages. And then, approximately two years later, the Sutton Firm was victorious, following a four-day trial, in securing the dismissal of essentially all of the Plaintiff’s meritless claims for a declaration that he was a partner in the businesses of the Defendants, and for money damages for the four prior years in which the plaintiff was claiming profits were due him as an alleged “partner". In fact, following cross-examination by Mr. Sutton, and the close of the plaintiff’s and Defendant’s cases, and following summations by the parties, the Court expressly said, in its oral Decision from the bench, that it did not find the plaintiff to be credible. The case and the Court’s determinations are presently on appeal by the plaintiff, but it is expected that the plaintiff will not be successful. S. R. S.Essentially, in a commercial case in Nassau County Supreme Court, commenced in or about October 2020, the plaintiff came in aggressively asking the Court, via heavy motion practice, for the appointment of a receiver of the business and its assets, and for a preliminary injunction, the Sutton Firm was victorious from the outset handily defeating the plaintiff’s motions and successfully, on a cross-motion on behalf of the Sutton Firm’s client, the Defendant, securing the dismissal of the plaintiff’s cause of action for a permanent injunction, on the ground that there was an adequate remedy at law for money damages. And then, approximately two years later, the Sutton Firm was victorious, following a four-day trial, in securing the dismissal of essentially all of the Plaintiff’s meritless claims for a declaration that he was a partner in the businesses of the Defendants, and for money damages for the four prior years in which the plaintiff was claiming profits were due him as an alleged “partner". In fact, following cross-examination by Mr. Sutton, and the close of the plaintiff’s and Defendant’s cases, and following summations by the parties, the Court expressly said, in its oral Decision from the bench, that it did not find the plaintiff to be credible. The case and the Court’s determinations are presently on appeal by the plaintiff, but it is expected that the plaintiff will not be successful.

S. R. S.