Paul J. Sagar, Esq. joins YRSS

We are pleased to announce that Paul J. Sagar has joined our firm as an Associate Attorney. A graduate of the Brooklyn School of Law, Paul’s experience in commercial law and litigation makes him a great asset to the law firm and to our clients. Paul’s professionalism, hard work, and diligence, will enable our law firm to continue to provide excellent legal representation that each and every one of our clients have grown accustomed to, and deserve.

YRSS's Client Wins on Appeal

YRSS was right on the law and on the facts and our client's rights were vindicated. In a published decision, the Appellate Term of the New York State Supreme Court, Second Department, confirmed that the law treats the sale of a mobile home as a sale of 'goods' under the Uniform Commercial Code ("U.C.C."). Under the U.C.C.  a seller's remedy for the intentional breach of a buyer, who backs out of a contract to purchase goods, is limited to twenty per cent of the value of the contract or $500, whichever is less, unless the parties agree otherwise.  While not represented by an attorney, our client paid a down payment to purchase a "house" in Florida that she intended to move to in her retirement. Further investigation revealed that the house was actually a mobile home, which was not what the client had bargained for. Our client immediately canceled the contract and demanded the immediate return of her down payment. The seller refused to return the down payment and instead treated the down payment as liquidated damages. YRSS commenced suit on behalf of the purchaser, and our attorney Peter E. Sverd, was disappointed when the trial judge dismissed the case after a bench trial.  YRSS appealed the decision and the Appellate Court got it right. Mrs. Santos got her money back, less the $500 that was provided for under the Uniform Commercial Code. See, Santos v DeBellis, 901 N.Y.S.2d 457 (N.Y.Supp.App. 2010).

YRSS Wins Dismissal of Lawsuit Against Manhattan Co-op

When the Co-op's commercial tenant sought court intervention to determine its rights to use the rear yard of the building to house and alter mechanical equipment, Peter Sverd was up to the task.  Mr. Sverd argued that the lawsuit was not ripe for adjudication and should, therefore, be dismissed without considering the merits of the plaintiff's case.  The Court  agreed, finding that  a letter from the Co-op's attorney and an oral statement of its Vice President to the plaintiffs was not tantamount to official Board action 'denying the plans' which was required under the plaintiff's lease.  "Knowledge of the law and attention to every fact of the case revealed that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the lawsuit in the first place. Any bargaining power that the plaintiffs thought they had brought to bare by bringing this lawsuit, turned out to be an illusion." Said Mr. Sverd.  The Court dismissed the case and awarded costs and disbursements to the plaintiffs.

The case is 100 Wooster Store Corp. v Wooster 100 Realty LTD. Index No.: 111692/2010

News about our Attorneys

Peter E. Sverd, one of our partners, was mentioned in this article from the New York Times.


Using his knowledge of the law, Peter was able to successfully file a lawsuit for his clients against the defunct New York, Brooklyn and Manhattan Beach Railway, which owned a portion of his client's property. The railway, which had been absorbed into the modern day Long Island Railroad (LIRR) in 1925, owned a right-of-way strip of property that had been forgotten about. At just under a block long and at 20 feet wide, it had been taken over by residents who considered it an extension of their own property line. Under a centuries old law, known as adverse possession, residents were able to claim the land for their personal use, as the piece of property was considered abandoned.