Should I Get an Employment Attorney?

employment attorneys westchester

When it comes to your job, do you need the services of an employment attorney? There is a fine line when it comes to hiring legal guidance, but if you are still not sure after reading this article then it cannot hurt to consult an attorney. They will ultimately be able to give you the best information pertaining to your legal matters. While not every lawyer is created equal and not every lawyer you see is going to be on the same level, it is important to find a lawyer you can rely on and work with them when discussing employment issues.  Read on to find out whether you should get an employment lawyer or at the very least go in for a consultation.

What can this type of attorney do for you? Well, they will be able to help you file a complaint and represent you in a dispute if you decide that you want to pursue action legally. By seeing an attorney that specializes in these manners, you can ensure that you will get good information by someone who knows the area through and through legally.

They represent employees and employers in many matters, including wrongful termination, mistreatment by an employer, wrongful termination, unsatisfactory employment termination, unemployment compensation, and even benefits and wage discussion and more. There are plenty of areas where you can get satisfactory feedback and guidance from a lawyer, but you have to hire them or at least have a consultation before moving ahead.

An attorney can also help you if you are an employee trying to figure out how to handle the contract you signed when you joined the company. Lawyers will be able to read and interpret the contact (if you have it) and see what the employment laws are and give you advice on where to go from there. Employers can also go to a lawyer and you may want to consult an attorney if you have any questions about situations including whether you’re being sued for any negligence, discrimination, mistreatment, allowance of a hostile work environment, and a termination.

Consult with an employment attorney if you are at all unclear about the laws in your state or just want to get a handle on the situation. Contacting a lawyer can help you figure out whether you have a case or if you are fighting a case, how to go forward. Some lawyers will charge by the hour. Other lawyers will charge contingency so that there are no upfront fees and they get a percentage if you win. This might be more frequently used in cases where an employer is being sued.

Expect that consulting a lawyer will help give you some clarity on what you should expect or what to do going forward. Whether an employee or employer, you can benefit from hiring an attorney or at least consulting one. They know the laws and procedures inside and out and will be a valuable source of help going forward. Consult one today and see what an attorney specializing in employment has to say about your case. Thanks for reading, and good luck!

Consulting a Commercial Real Estate Attorney About Real Estate

Real Estate Attorneys NY

The world of real estate can be complicated and even be intimidating for people who are new to it. Breaking down what’s going on in the field often involves figuring out where you stand in it. Zoning in on what type of real estate you would like to buy or sell will help you figure out where you’re going. Whether you’re going into residential real estate or commercial, real estate involves legal intricacies and details. When it comes to this, real estate lawyers might be very helpful.

Consulting a commercial real estate attorney is beneficial whether you’re going into commercial or residential real estate. No matter which you go for, each comes with its own legal issues and its risks to boot. Read on to find out why having legal guidance to consult with can be a smart move when dealing in real estate.

Consider the details when it comes to real estate because commercial property and real estate deals in particular really need you to take a microscope to those details as they’re amplified. Commercial property comes with its own set of concerns that are going to be different from residential. It can be tough enough to find a commercial property that you’re interested in buying, but once you actually start considering buying it then you have to bring the lawyer in.

This is because when a buyer wants to move forward with a property, it’s a huge amount of money and the details can make or break you. You cannot simply sign on the dotted line because you’re going in blind. There needs to be a huge amount of time where there is a good amount of research and preparation as well that comes before a deal is officially closed. This requires a whole investment of resources on its own, which makes you see why people do it– if it costs so much to get to that finish line, it must be because there is s benefit to doing it that people are shelling out for it.

A lawyer and putting language in the deal is going to help protect you. Not all deals go through, and if the deal is not going to close you need to be covered and recover your losses and you will be paid for damages so your purse strings are not affected by the actions of the other party. Having legal and experienced eyes on the property and the deal and the details with you is vastly helpful. You’ll need to have the property physically inspected as well before signing anything.

Never try to negotiate a big deal alone to save money. That’s insane. No one does that in real estate– at least no one that lasts. Unless you’re a really sharp lawyer yourself, you need a legal pro on your side. Two heads are better than one, and nowhere is that truer in real estate. You’ve got the investment side covered, so get someone who will have the legal side covered too. If you’re currently looking at properties, consult a real estate attorney today.

Do You Need a Business Lawyer?

business lawyers long island

Do you need anExperienced Business Lawyer on your side?

For many people, it can be tough to know when you need to call an attorney. However, just like with a medical issue, if you think that you might need a business attorney then you probably do. It’s better to consult with a lawyer and know for sure than to potentially face negative consequences because you needed one and didn’t get it.

You should be consulting with a lawyer for sure if you know that you are dealing with an issue that is going to require legal support. This could be the case of someone getting injured while on your work property or it could be that they got injured while driving a company car or hurt someone else by causing an accident. In these cases it is best to consult an attorney as they will be able to advise you on your next move.

In other cases you may not be certain if you need legal advice. At the end of the day it is better to consult a lawyer than to not because you will know for sure whether you need additional time with legal counsel or find out that you don’t require further aid.

Some people are the type to always ask lawyer while others may shy away on it. If you have had a bad experience with a lawyer just know that it might have been the case that they were just not a good fit for you. Some lawyers are not that good and you may have not trusted them to give you good advice or make sure that you were not spending more money than you had to. Even if you have had bad lawyers in the past it’s important to keep an open mind while searching for a new one as not very lawyer is going to be the same and there are many good lawyers out there.

  • When You Need an Attorney
  • When your partners want to create an LLC or partnership
  • When you are buying a business
  • Anything involving environmental protection
  • Sexual harassment or accusations of such

You may not need a lawyer if you are dealing with simple issues. Things like reserving a name for your business or applying for domain names can be done by you without any help. You can also interview employees and hire them and do the paperwork yourself but call a lawyer with any questions. When it comes to hiring contractors it writing up agreements you can again handle that yourself. There are quite a few things when it comes to business that you can handle yourself so research what is in your grasp and go for it.

At the end of the day you need a lawyer on your side for your business to succeed. There are simply too many problems that can arise it factors you have to deal with. Consult a good lawyer today and see what they may be able to do for your business and how they may be able to help you out. Thanks for reading and good luck!

Second Department Rejects Yellowstone Application where Tenant’s Default was not Curable

Real estate veterans are well familiar with the court order known as a Yellowstone injunction, which is sought by a commercial tenant to stop a landlord’s termination of its lease. In order to obtain the injunction, a tenant must demonstrate that: (1) it holds a lease, (2) its landlord served a notice to cure, (3) the tenant sought the Yellowstone injunction prior to the expiration of the cure period, and (4) the tenant has the ability and desire to cure the alleged default.

In Prince Fashions, Inc. v. 60G 542 Broadway Owner, LLC, 149 A.D.2d 529 (2d Dep’t April 18, 2017), the landlord alleged the tenant was in default because it failed to maintain an insurance policy naming the landlord as an additional insured as required by the lease. The Second Department held the tenant could not cure the default because the pertinent policy periods had passed, and it rejected the tenant’s Yellowstone application for that reason, among others.

In contrast to the situation in Prince Fashions, willing tenants are likely to prevail where the alleged default is current. For example, where a tenant is in default because it failed to meet its nonstructural repair obligations, its submission to the court of a feasible repair plan would practically guarantee the granting of a Yellowstone injunction.

Appellate Division Rejects Finder’s Fee Claim

The recent decision issued by the First Department in Multi-Capital Group LLC v. Karasick, et al, 149 A.D.3d 437 (1st Dep’t April 6, 2017) provides a good set of facts to comprehend when a finder’s fee claim is viable. That case concerned the sale of the U.S. Steel Tower Building in Pittsburgh. The plaintiff submitted the winning bid to purchase the building via a letter of intent that included a $348 million purchase price. However, the plaintiff’s principal never actually intended to purchase the building. Rather, he intended to procure investors who would do so.

In July 2007, the plaintiff commenced negotiations with the defendant investors, wherein the plaintiff sought a finder’s fee in exchange for the defendants’ rights to participate in the purchase of the building. The parties attempted to negotiate a finder’s fee agreement. A draft agreement was exchanged setting the fee at $2 million. However, the agreement was never executed, and in January 2008, the defendants’ purchase deal fell through.

In January 2011, three years later, a real estate due diligence professional unaffiliated with the plaintiff approached one of the defendants with a new proposed deal. Negotiations once again commenced, which resulted in a sale contract being entered into on February 10, 2011 by which the defendants purchased the building for $250 million plus $39 million in tenant improvements.

The First Department affirmed the trial court’s decision granting summary judgment to the defendants emphasizing that a finder’s fee agreement was never executed, and that there was no connection between the plaintiff’s contacts with the defendants in 2007-08 and the defendant’s ultimate purchase of the building in 2011. This holding was based on the well-settled rule of law that a finder’s fee claim only has merit if the finder can show that there was some “continuing connection” between the finder’s initial efforts and the transaction that was consummated. Edward Gottlieb, Inc. v. City & Commercial Communications PLC, 200 A.D.2d  395, 399, 606 N.Y.S.2d 148 (1st Dep’t 1994).

First Department Blesses Customary Rent Prove-Up Practice Utilized by Commercial Landlords

The recent decision in Moon 170 Mercer, Inc. v. Vella, 146 A.D.3d 537, 45 N.Y.S.2d 415 (1st Dep’t 2017) blesses the practice commercial landlords customarily utilize to prove-up the rent for which a tenant or guarantor is liable. In this case, the First Department granted summary judgment to the commercial landlord against the guarantor and held: “[t]he damages calculation spreadsheet on which plaintiff relies in its motion for summary judgment is a ledger maintained in the ordinary course of business…and plaintiff’s vice president’s affidavit explaining the calculations and the spreadsheet suffices to authenticate the document.”

If a trial to establish the rent owed was required, as is often the case, the landlord would have obtained the same result. The ledger would have been entered into evidence through the vice president’s testimony authenticating the document.

Decisions such as this, honoring the best practices that real estate litigators follow on a regular basis, provide well appreciated stability to the court system.

Commercial Division Rejects Landlord’s Application to Vacate Arbitration Award Establishing Fair Market Rent to be Paid by McDonald’s Restaurant

The recent decision by Hon. Shirley Werner Kornreich in Broadway Retail Owner, LLC vs. McDonald’s Corp., No. 651884/2014, 2017 N.Y. Slip. Op. 50011(U), 54 Misc.3d 1206(A) (Supreme Court, New York County, Jan. 9, 2017) concerned a very common provision in commercial leases, which established future rent based upon a percentage of the fair market rent (“FMV”), and provided that if the parties could not agree on the FMV, the issue would be resolved by a binding arbitration. The FMV percentage amount in McDonald’s was 90%.

After the parties could not agree on the FMV, an arbitration was commenced. The panel found that the FMV was $5,354,893, 90% of which was $4,819,404. The landlord submitted a petition to Judge Kornreich seeking to vacate the award. In her decision, Judge Kornreich emphasized the extremely heavy burden that must be met to vacate an arbitration award, which in most cases is a showing that the party was prejudiced by corruption, fraud or misconduct in procuring the award, or that the arbitrator was biased. The Judge found that the landlord’s sole argument concerned alleged misrepresentations made during the arbitration by McDonald’s and its counsel regarding a decision that Judge Kornreich had issued in a previous related action. Based on this finding Judge Kornreich denied the petition because the landlord’s allegations concerned the allegedly improper conduct of a party, rather than the arbitrators.

This decision brings home the point commercial lease parties must comprehend when they include a FMV/arbitration clause in a lease – the agreed-upon arbitration will be their last legitimate bite at the apple if a dispute arises because the chances of vacating awards are minimal at best. In order to reduce the odds of a poorly reasoned award, parties should seek terms that allow them to control the arbitration proceeding to the extent that they can. Examples of such terms include those that mandate arbitrator qualifications, the use of party selected and/or neutral arbitrators, the appraisal methods to be utilized, the arbitration administrator (i.e., the AAA), and the rules to be applied (i.e., the AAA’s Real Estate Industry Arbitration Rules).

Hon. Sabrina B. Kraus Orders Seller to Return Purchaser’s Down Payment

The recent decision in Gonzalez v. Char & Herzberg, LLP, 2017 WL 1031941 (Bronx County Mar. 13, 2017) concerned a dispute that frequently arises after a deal blows up – whether or not the purchaser has the right to recover her down payment. The purchaser agreed to purchase a single-family home located in Bronx County and delivered a $20,000 down payment to the escrowee. The contract of sale included a mortgage commitment contingency, which conditioned the purchaser’s obligation to close on a lender’s commitment to issue a $495,000 loan for a term of at least 30 years within 45 days.

A lender issued a mortgage loan commitment letter on the 45th day, which included the condition that the purchaser secure a fully executed contract for the sale of her current home prior to the closing. Three days later the lender issued a letter notifying the purchaser that the loan application was denied because she failed to meet the condition. The next day the purchaser’s counsel notified the seller that her mortgage application had been denied and requested the return of the deposit. The seller rejected the request and set a closing date several weeks later pursuant to a time is of the essence demand, which notified the purchaser that her failure to close would result in the retention of the down payment. The seller ultimately retained the down payment and sold the premises to a different buyer approximately four months later.

In her decision after trial, the Hon. Sabrina B. Kraus held that where a mortgage commitment letter is revoked, as was the case in Gonzalez, the purchaser’s right to return of the down payment “turns on whether the commitment revocation and consequent failure of the transaction was attributable to bad faith on the part of the [purchaser]”. Judge Kraus found there was no evidence of bad faith on the purchaser’s part in the record, and entered judgment for the purchaser in the amount of the $20,000 deposit plus interest.

The Gonzalez decision highlights a best practice to be followed by purchasers and their attorneys when a contingency has not been met – notify the seller in writing ASAP!!! Here, the purchaser’s counsel did just that, and as a result, the purchaser prevailed absent any evidence that she acted in bad faith.

Appellate Division Kills Commercial Lease Guaranty Claim for Failure to Submit Original Agreement at Trial

In 76-82 St. Mark’s, LLC v. Gluck (Supreme Court, Kings County) a commercial tenant sought to recover damages for breach of a guaranty agreement. At trial, the landlord’s counsel attempted to enter into evidence a faxed copy of the agreement that was missing two lines on the second page. The trial judge denied admission of the copy and granted the tenant’s motion to dismiss the case on the ground that the landlord failed to meet its burden of proof.

By a decision dated February 22, 2017, the Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed the trial court’s decision. Copies of documents are regularly admitted into evidence at trial under CPLR 4539 when a party business can demonstrate that it makes copies of the subject document in the regular course of its business by a reliable process. However, the Second Department found that the landlord did not meet the requirements of that statute.

Thus, the copy of the agreement could only be admitted into evidence if the landlord established that it was a reliable and accurate portrayal of the original. The Second Department held that the landlord failed to meet that burden because “the [landlord’s] principal was not present when the original guaranty was executed, and thus could not testify as to whether the original guaranty was similarly missing a portion of paragraph four, while [the tenant] testified that the guaranty she executed contained complete paragraphs.” See Gluck, 2017 WL 691073, at *2 (2nd Dep’t 2017).

The Gluck decision puts real estate investors and tenants on notice that original transaction documents must be maintained to avoid a trial disaster.

3 Ways a Commercial Litigation Attorney Can Help Your Firm

commercial litigation attorney westchester

When it comes to litigation, this area is growing by the day. This specialty of law is really beginning to drive not only revenue at law firms but their legal hiring as well. A survey by Robert Half Legal found that up to thirty percent of the hiring that legal departments and law firms do is in this area, filling crucial positions for commercial litigation.

Hiring attorneys to do commercial litigation and specialized attorneys in general is a good choice for any law firm. With more and more competition popping up in specialty areas, they can hardly afford not to! The real question is, could your firm benefit from hiring a commercial litigation attorney?

When you hire professionals who have the right skills to fit the requirements of your firm, that means that you can deliver the right attorneys to the right cases because they’re more qualified to argue the case. It ultimately costs less to depend on one of your own from in house than to rely on outside legal counsel, and the bottom line may be appealing to those corporate legal departments. It just makes sense to have specialization, from being able to offer that to clients to the cost savings.

By bringing commercial litigation experts over to your side, you can cut back on costs and bring their experience and knowledge to your side. If your firm is considering hiring an attorney experienced in commercial litigation, check out these reasons why they’re so in demand while you’re thinking it over.

1. Specialized Focus

Since your commercial litigation lawyer can be the one to go to on commercial litigation, it means that you can free up other lawyers who may not want or wish to work in this field. Since commercial litigation is so complex, a specialized focus means that the cases can be complicated and drawn out, it can be hugely inconvenient to have members of your team on the case that could be utilized elsewhere, especially for your corporate specialty lawyers. Having a specialist on staff will ensure you have the right person to deal with these cases.

2. Extra Protection of Business Interests

Firms, people and businesses need to protect their business interests, and this type of attorney can help them do that. Whether it’s a merger or a contract, a litigation attorney will have the knowledge and experience necessary to protect the interests of the firm through their excellence.

3. Commercial Litigation Experience

Their experience will be able to help your firm decide whether to litigate or not. Sometimes legal matters are best pursued in court, and other times your attorney will recommend not pursuing the matter further in court and pursuing another strategy instead. As legal cases are time consuming and expensive, it’s good to have someone on board that can weigh in on how to proceed.

Hire an attorney for a short term or work with a recruiting firm. Whether you hire them short term or long term on a contract is up to you, but if your firm could use a commercial litigation attorney then consider getting one on board soon and see what a difference it makes.