YRSS Restores Shareholder's Right to Vote; Stays Termination of Proprietary Lease

In a Court decision highlighted as a "Decision of Interest" in the New York Law Journal, the New York State, Supreme Court granted our client's application for a ‘Yellowstone’ injunction thereby preserving her interest in a cooperative apartment located in lower Manhattan. This motion was necessitated in part, by the plaintiffs attempt to terminate our client's proprietary lease as the result of an alleged failure to pay the coop's legal fees that were incurred as the result of a prior enforcement issue, against our client.  The Court’s order also invalidated certain votes of the other shareholders at shareholder meetings, who refused to count the vote of our client, and ordered that our client's voting rights be restored, therefore preserving her voice in the management of the cooperative apartment.

Summer v. Ruckus 85 Corp. Supreme Court, New York

Peter E. Sverd, Esq. for the motion

Summary Judgment Granted to YRSS's Client. A NY LLC, and its Manhattan Property, Remain Shielded from Enforcement of a $3 Million Judgment

Motion to Reargue is Granted; Kings County Commercial Division Judge Dismisses Lawsuit Against Three Corporate Defendants and its Principal

YRSS defended three corporate defendants and their principal in an action which sought to rescind and enjoin the continued performance of a $2.6 million stock purchase agreement. The Court dismissed the complaint on re-argument of Peter  E. Sverd's motion to dismiss. Dismissal of the case early on in the litigation saved the client precious time and with minimum interruption of the transaction. 

See Liu v. Asian Supermarket Corp., et al. New York State Supreme Court, Index No.: 3710/2012

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.