CMM | Campolo, Middleton, McCormick, LLP

Uncategorized

Legal History Insights: September Issue

Posted: September 25th, 2025

Published In: The Suffolk Lawyer

Like the summer months, significant events in legal history occurred in September. On September 3, 1783, the Treaty of Paris was signed in Paris by representatives of the Colonies and Great Britain which formally ended the Revolutionary War; On September 8, 1974, President Gerald Ford granted an unconditional pardon to former President Richard Nixon; the Emancipation Proclamation was signed by President Abraham Lincoln on September 22, 1862; the Judiciary Act of 1789, which established the federal courts, was passed by Congress on September 24, 1789; the Bill of Rights was adopted by Congress on September 25, 1789; and on September 17, 1787, the Constitution was signed and thereafter sent to the States for ratification.  There are numerous additional significant legal events which occurred in the month of September, and each is deserving of a full article.  This article will focus on the Constitutional Convention, which took place in Philadelphia from May 25, 1787-September 17, 1787.

The story of the Constitutional Convention and the Constitution does not begin with the Convention in Philadelphia. The Articles of Confederation, which was agreed upon in 1781, did not create an executive or national courts; only a weak Confederation Congress was created.  That Congress did not have the power to levy taxes, regulate trade, or raise an army.  So weak was it that in 1785, during a dispute between Maryland and Virginia regarding trade, fishing and navigation rights on the Potomac River, without fear of reprisal, George Washington hosted, at Mount Vernon, Commissioners from both States to negotiate a resolution.  Such a meeting was in violation of the Articles of Confederation which prohibited any two States from entering into an agreement without the consent of the Confederation Congress.[i]  Shays Rebellion is another example of the weakness of the Confederation Congress.  Shays Rebellion was a violent uprising in western Massachusetts during 1786 and 1787.  At that point in time, the Articles of Confederation had been in place for about 6 years.  After the Revolutionary War, people struggled to pay debts, creditors refused to give loans and demanded payment in advance, taxes were increased, and high interest rates were charged for loans.  As a result, among other things, farmers began to lose their land and property to creditors.  Continental Army Captain Daniel Shays led an uprising against dept collection.  The Confederation Congress, which was meeting in New York, authorized raising federal troops to put down the uprising, but the various States refused to pay for the troops.  A privately funded militia was organized in Massachusetts that ultimately restored order.  George Washington noted that “Without some alteration in our political creed, the superstructure we have been seven years raising at the expense of so much blood and treasure, must fall.  We are fast verging to anarchy and confusion!”  Under the Articles of Confederation, the States had too much power and the national government had too little.  The result was the Constitutional Convention of 1787.  Congress approved the convention in February 1787 and by March all but 3 States had elected delegates. 

The Convention was to begin May 14, 1787, in Philadelphia.  James Madison was the first delegate to arrive (May 3, 1787). When the Convention began, Edmund Randolph, the Governor of Virginia, presented the “Virginia Plan” which consisted of 15 resolutions forming an outline of a constitution.  These resolutions were the focus of debate and negotiation in the ensuing months. A contentious issue faced by the delegates was how to incorporate the States within a strong central government envisioned by the Virginia Plan, and the debate on that issue started with how to allocate representatives in Congress.  The Virginia Plan proposed to eliminate the one state/one vote system existing under the Articles of Confederation and replace it with voting by each individual representative and that legislators would be apportioned by “the number of free inhabitants.”  And thus, started what was likely the most contentious issue of the Convention and pitted small states against large states. Notably, small States outnumbered large States at the Convention and the Convention voted by State. The debate raged for about two months and, as did most issues faced during the Convention, ended with compromise.  James Wilson of Pennsylvania made a deal with South Carolina to secure its support for representation in one branch of Congress based on population by what has been called the 3/5 compromise.[ii]  This proposal initially passed by a vote of 9-2. How to determine representation in the Senate was next to be determined and Benjamin Franklin proposed the “Great Compromise” which called for proportional representation in the House and equal representation in the Senate.[iii]

It took the delegates until the end of July 1787, more than two months after the Convention opened, for them to turn to the Chief Executive/President.  Questions that persisted were the length of the term, how to elect the President, could the President run for additional terms, could a “bad President be removed, and should he have veto power over legislation. Gouverneur Morris[iv] described the significance of the debate: “It is the most difficult of all rightly to balance the executive.  Make him too weak: the legislature will usurp his powers.  Make him too strong: he will usurp the legislature.”[v]  Again, debate ensued followed by compromise.  James Wilson proposed the elector system which helped the Southern States because while slaves could not vote, they would be counted when allocating electors. The elector system gave the people a role (electing the electors) appeased both the Southern States (3/5ths Compromise) and the large States (number of electors based on total number of representatives n the House and Senate).  The delegates recognized flaws in the provisions related to the President and anticipated amendments to address the flaws.  The 12th, 22nd and 25th Amendments each address some of those flaws.

Slavery came up again in connection with certain navigation acts and the authority of Congress.  The Fugitive Slave Clause (Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3) was agreed upon to secure eliminating a 2/3 majority voting requirement for certain navigation/trade acts.  Rufus King described the issue of slavery as one of the Constitution’s “greatest blemishes” and Madison stated that as “Great as the evil is, a dismemberment of the union would be worse.”[vi]

Gouverneur Morris, who drafted the Constitution’s preamble, described the Constitution as being based on compromise: “Each state [was] less rigid on points of inferior magnitude than might have been otherwise expected.  And thus the Constitution which we now present is the result of a spirit of amity and of that mutual deference and concession which the peculiarity of our political situation rendered indispensable.”[vii]

On Saturday September 15, 1787 the final roll call vote occurred and the draft Constitution was approved 10-0 (Rhode Island, New York and North Carolina did not vote).  The Constitution was signed Monday September 17, 1787 and then sent to the States for ratification.

[i] Articles of Confederation, Article VI

[ii] The 3/5 “Rule” was initially proposed in 1783 by the Confederation Congress in connection with apportioning tax burdens but was never implemented.

[iii] See, Federalist No. 37

[iv] Gouverneur was a delegate from Pennsylvania but his family was originally from New York, in what is now known as the Morrisania section of the Bronx

[v] Stewart, David O., The Summer of 1787, Simon & Schuster, 2007, p. 157

[vi] Ibid, p. 205

[vii] Ibid, p. 236

6 CMM Attorneys Recognized as 2024 Super Lawyers® and 4 Named Rising Stars

Posted: September 25th, 2024

Campolo, Middleton & McCormick, LLP is proud to announce that ten attorneys at the firm, in multiple practice areas, have been named to the 2024 Super Lawyers® list, four of them as a Rising Star. The CMM attorneys recognized this year, in practice areas including Business and Corporate, Personal Injury, Real Estate, Business Litigation, Mergers & Acquisitions, Construction Litigation, Employment Litigation, and Appeals, are:

Joe Campolo

Scott Middleton

Patrick McCormick

Christine Malafi

Jeffrey Basso

Donald Rassiger

David Green (Rising Star)

Vincent Costa (Rising Star)

Richard DeMaio (Rising Star)

The rigorous Super Lawyers selection process is based on peer evaluations, independent research, and professional achievement in legal practice. The Rising Stars recognition denotes superior professional achievement by attorneys who have been in practice for under 10 years or are under age 40. No more than 2.5 percent of lawyers in New York State are named to the Rising Stars list.

Learn more about CMM’s outstanding legal professionals here.

Download Our Guide: Top 5 NY Labor & Employment Law Takeaways for Companies in 2023

In the ever-evolving landscape of labor and employment, staying abreast of the latest legal developments is important for businesses to ensure compliance and foster productive workplace environments. From non-compete agreements to discrimination matters, our informative guide delves into the crucial legal updates that businesses need to navigate.
Download our “Top 5 New York Labor & Employment Laws Takeaways for Companies in 2023” and learn what you need to know in 2023.

    *Disclaimer: The use of the internet or of this form for communication with the firm or any individual professional or representative of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. No attorney-client relationship exists unless and until a retainer agreement is mutually executed. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form. This form and/or the content of this website is not and should not be construed as legal advice on any subject matter.

    I have read and understand the disclaimer.*Sign me up for the newsletter.

    Trusts & Estates Associate Attorney

    Campolo, Middleton & McCormick, a Forbes-recognized top corporate law firm with offices across Long Island, seeks a Trusts & Estates Associate Attorney with at least 2 years of relevant experience to work closely with high-net-worth clients of the law firm and a multifamily office. We are seeking an attorney familiar with estate and trust planning, estate administration, and general business tax, with an interest in sophisticated estate planning strategies. This position is based in our Ronkonkoma office.

    Duties & Responsibilities

    Assist in the creation of estate plans for high-net-worth clients and draft estate planning documents

    Stay up-to-date and be able to advise clients on relevant state and federal tax laws

    Advise shareholders of closely held corporations on estate and gift tax issues, executive compensation issues, and business succession

    Advise on charitable contributions and formation and operation of charitable foundations

    Work closely with clients’ other professional advisors including legal, accounting, and finance

    Assist with general tax planning for corporate clients

    Probate administration and trust administration

    Qualifications

    Admitted to practice in NYS

    At least 2 years of related experience

    CMM is an equal opportunity employer.

    Salary range: $110,000-$130,000/year depending on experience

    Please email resume to recruiting@cmmllp.com.

    APPLY NOW

    CMM’s Christine Malafi Featured in The Best Lawyers in America® for the 6th Consecutive Year

    Posted: August 23rd, 2022

    Campolo, Middleton & McCormick, LLP, a premier law firm with offices across Long Island, is thrilled to announce that that Senior Partner Christine Malafi has been recognized by her peers for the sixth year in a row to be featured in The Best Lawyers in America® in the category of Employment Law – Management (2023 edition). With this distinction, Malafi ranks among the top five percent of private practice attorneys nationwide as determined by a rigorous peer-review process.

    For over three decades, the legal profession and the public have turned to Best Lawyers® as one of the most credible measures of legal integrity and distinction in the nation. Inclusion in Best Lawyers is based on over a million confidential evaluations by top attorneys. The Best Lawyers’ founding principle forms the basis of this transparent methodology: the best lawyers know who the best lawyers are. No fee to participate is permitted.

    Malafi chairs the Corporate Department at CMM, which was recognized by Forbes as a Top Corporate Law Firm in America. Her practice focuses on mergers and acquisitions, corporate governance, corporate transactions, drafting and negotiating a wide range of agreements, and helping businesses navigate all types of human resources matters. She routinely represents buyers and sellers in multimillion-dollar transactions and serves in a general counsel role for many of the firm’s corporate clients. In addition to her legal work, Malafi serves on the Executive Board of Directors of Family Service League, among others.

    CMM Expands Corporate Department with Addition of Zachary Mike, Esq.

    Posted: April 6th, 2022

    Campolo, Middleton & McCormick, LLP, recently recognized by Forbes as a Top Corporate Law Firm, is pleased to welcome Zachary Mike, Esq., as an Associate in the growing Corporate department. Zach focuses on M&A related matters including buy-side and sell-side transactions, as well as a variety of routine and complex corporate transactions. 

    “2022 M&A is shaping up to be as robust as 2021 and CMM’s Corporate department is busier than ever, so we’re very happy to welcome Zach to the team,” said Senior Associate Vincent Costa. “Zach’s unique experience of working in a family-owned business [he previously worked at a well-known East End vineyard] has given him direct insight into CMM’s business-oriented approach and helps him understand the client perspective.”

    At Hofstra University’s Maurice A. Deane School of Law, Zach was a member of the Journal of International Business and Law and served as a student tax attorney at Hofstra Law’s Tax Clinic, where he represented clients in tax controversies against the IRS. A graduate of Binghamton University, Zach was a member of the Chinese Music Ensemble and the Binghamton Crosbys, an award-winning a cappella group. He sang with Hofstra’s Legally Sound a cappella group and is a member of the New York City Bar Chorus.

    Malafi Quoted in Newsday on Employee Safety Committees

    Posted: February 14th, 2022

    Update: As of February 15, 2022, the Commissioner of Health has continued to designate COVID-19 as a highly contagious communicable disease that presents a serious risk of harm to the public health in New York State. This designation was extended to March 17, 2022.

    by Jamie Herzlich, Newsday

    Almost two years since the COVID shutdown, employers now have guidance on a key component of New York’s HERO Act, which among other things required employers to allow for the establishment of workplace safety committees.

    The state Department of Labor recently released a proposed rule providing details on the composition and operation of these committees, which would allow workers at firms with 10 or more employees to raise workplace health and safety issues and review health and safety policies.

    While the workplace safety committee provision technically took effect Nov. 1, legal and safety experts say employers were fuzzy on their obligations until the DOL released the proposed rule on Dec. 22.

    “Until the proposed rule came out, employers didn’t really know what they needed to do to be in compliance,” says Christine Malafi, a senior partner and chair of the corporate department at Campolo, Middleton & McCormick LLP in Ronkonkoma.

    The employers had the potential setup of committees on their radar, but without further detailed guidance were more immediately focused on creating airborne infectious disease exposure prevention plans, another component of the HERO Act, she said.

    Employers must keep in effect those prevention plans until Feb. 15 — or later if New York’s Health Commissioner Mary Bassett extends the designation of COVID-19 as a highly contagious communicable disease that presents a serious risk of harm beyond that date, Malafi says. Experts expect an extension.

    Not just about COVID

    But consider that the HERO Act’s safety committee provision isn’t just about coronavirus prevention — it also deals with overall workplace safety.

    Also, keep in mind, employers are under no obligation to create these committees on their own, but must allow for them to be formed upon a written request by employees, Malafi says.

    Specifically, the guidance dictates, among other things, that, “committees may be established for each worksite following a written request for recognition by at least two non-supervisory employees who work at the worksite,” says Malafi. “Multiple requests for committee recognition shall be combined and treated as a single request to form a committee,” the rule says.

    Asking for it

    The committee must be comprised of at least two non-supervisory employees and at least one employer representative. Upon the receipt of a request for recognition, employers shall respond to such request with “reasonable promptness.”

    Among their obligations, after the establishment of a workplace safety committee, employers must respond, in writing, within a reasonable time period, to each safety and health concern, hazard, complaint and other violations raised by the workplace safety committee or one of its members, Malafi says.

    Read the full article on Newsday‘s website.

    Learn more about employee safety committees by joining us on February 18th: Event Details

    What Employers Should Know About Employee Non-Compete Agreements in 2022

    Posted: January 28th, 2022

    Employers want to know: will 2022 mark the end of the employee non-compete agreement?

    Federal Efforts

    In July 2021, President Biden signed an executive order aimed at promoting competition in the U.S. economy. The executive order encourages the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to ban or limit employee non-compete agreements. According to the Biden administration, this FTC-directed crackdown on non-competes is meant to “curtail the unfair use of non-compete clauses and other clauses or agreements that may unfairly limit worker mobility.” In his remarks last summer, President Biden noted that non-competes not only affect highly paid executives but also tend to unfairly target low-wage earners who should be free to take a better job if given the opportunity.

    A non-compete agreement is essentially a contract wherein an employee agrees not to work for or otherwise engage with competing businesses, and/or not to use information learned during employment, when their current employment ends. The purpose of these types of agreements (also known as restrictive covenants) is to avoid competition for an agreed-upon period of time after an employee leaves.

    Since the executive order in July 2021, the FTC has not initiated any action or rule regarding non-compete agreements. Part of this delay involves a vacancy on the FTC Committee, which is required to have five members. President Biden recently resubmitted a nomination for Georgetown University Law Professor Alvaro Bedoya, but until the vacancy is filled and a fifth Committee member confirmed, the FTC is unlikely to take concrete action on non-compete agreements.

    Besides the Biden administration’s executive order, there have been other federal efforts to prohibit non-compete agreements. First introduced in January 2019, Congress’s Freedom to Compete Act amends the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to prohibit an employer from enforcing or threatening to enforce any non-compete agreement in employment contracts with certain entry-level, lower wage workers. The Act is currently stalled in the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. 

    New York State Efforts

    As the law currently stands in New York, non-compete agreements are generally permitted as long as they (1) are necessary to protect the employer’s legitimate business interests, (2) do not pose an undue hardship on the employee, (3) do not harm the public, and (4) are reasonable in time period and geographic scope.

    Even if the federal rule change does not come to pass, the future of non-compete agreements in New York could soon change regardless. During her first State of the State address in January 2022, Governor Hochul pledged to ban non-compete agreements in New York State for workers making below the median wage in the state.

    Several other states have already amended their own laws pertaining to non-compete agreements. Oregon and Illinois recently prohibited non-competes for certain employees earning less than a certain salary per year. The District of Columbia has completely banned employee non-compete agreements – a law that will go into effect on April 1, 2022.

    While federal and state changes remain uncertain, it’s still important for employers to make sure that all agreements, including non-competes, are tailored to best meet their goals within the law’s limits. Please contact our labor and employment team for guidance.

    2022 Changes to Minimum Wage and Overtime Exempt Salary Threshold

    Posted: December 21st, 2021

    As the end of the year is approaching, it is important to remind New York State employers and employees of the increased minimum wages that affect both hourly and salaried employees.

    For hourly, non-exempt workers, please see the below chart for basic hourly minimum wage increases that go into effect as of December 31, 2021:

    Minimum Wage Increase

    Geographic Location / Increase from 2021 2022 Rate
    NYC $15.00 per hour (no change)
    Nassau, Suffolk, & Westchester / +$1.00 per hr$15.00 per hour
    Remainder of New York State / +$0.70 per hr $13.20 per hour

    To the extent you or your workforce are paying basic minimum wage, it is important to make sure that the increased wages are reflected as of December 31, 2021.

    Tip Credit

    New York State also allows employers in certain industries to satisfy the minimum wage by combining a cash wage paid by the employer plus a credit for tips the employee receives from customers. The minimum hourly rates New York employers must pay most tipped employees go into effect as of December 31, 2021:

    Service Employees

    Geographic Location2022 Rate / Tip Credit
    NYC$12.50 / $2.50
    Nassau, Suffolk, & Westchester$12.50 / $2.50
    Remainder of New York State$11.00 / $2.20

    Food Service Employees

    Geographic Location2022 Rate / Tip Credit
    NYC$10.00 / $5.00
    Nassau, Suffolk, & Westchester$10.00 / $5.00
    Remainder of New York State$8.80 / $4.40

    The “tip credit” rules can be difficult to follow, so it is important to track this information to ensure that tipped employees are receiving at least basic minimum wage, inclusive of tips, when calculating wages.

    Increased Salary Threshold for Overtime Exemption

    Finally, there are increases in the minimum salary threshold that must be met for exempt employees. As of December 31, 2021, the following minimum salaries must be paid for exempt administrative and executive employees:

    Geographic Location2022 Salary Threshold
    NYC$1,125.00 p/w ($58,500.00 annually)
    Nassau, Suffolk, & Westchester$1,125.00 p/w ($58,500.00 annually)

    With the upcoming changes, it is important to update policies and pay practices to stay in compliance.  If you have questions about minimum wage, overtime, or wage and hour exemptions, please contact us here or call (631) 738-9100.

    Entry-Level Associate

    Campolo, Middleton & McCormick, LLP, a premier law firm, is seeking an Entry-Level Associate Attorney for a full-time role in our Ronkonkoma office working with both our litigation and corporate departments. In this role, you will gain critical hands-on experience across our diverse practice areas. We are looking for team members who want to grow with us long-term and make their professional home with us.

    Duties & Responsibilities

    Corporate responsibilities include helping to draft and negotiate a variety of business contracts including asset and stock purchase agreements, license agreements, partnership agreements, employment-related agreements, joint venture agreements, and commercial leases; assisting in all aspects of complex M&A transactions, including due diligence and drafting and negotiating agreements.

    Litigation responsibilities include legal research, drafting pleadings and motions, drafting discovery demands and responses, document production, trial preparation, preparing for and taking depositions, and court appearances in various litigation matters including commercial, municipal, insurance defense, and personal injury matters.

    Qualifications

    • Admitted to practice in New York State (or pending admission, with admission expected in early 2026)
    • Proficient in Microsoft Office
    • Relevant internship experience a plus

    Benefits of a career at CMM include:

    • Competitive benefits package including health, dental, and vision insurance; life insurance; retirement account with employee match
    • Professional development support

    CMM is an equal opportunity employer.

    Salary: $100,000/year

    Please email resume to recruiting@cmmllp.com.

    Navigating COVID-Related Commercial Lease Disputes

    Posted: October 13th, 2021

    By Patrick McCormick

    While the COVID-19 pandemic has not been kind to many business owners who had to comply with temporary closures and declining revenues, commercial tenants have nevertheless faced an uphill battle in Court trying to walk away from their rent payment obligations. While tenants seeking to be completely absolved from paying rent have not met much success in the court system, we have assisted many clients in successfully renegotiating their lease terms without resorting to litigation. Here, a look at the arguments that haven’t worked in Court, illustrating that negotiation is often a better strategy for landlords and tenants alike.

    The unprecedented pandemic led to many commercial landlords and tenants finding themselves in the position of landlord Bay Plaza Community Center and tenant Vistasite Eye Care.[1] This commercial landlord-tenant case stemmed from the tenant’s failure to pay rent from April 1, 2020 (the height of the pandemic) and after. Bay Plaza commenced a suit for back rent and moved for summary judgment. In opposition, Bronx Vistasite sought cover under the doctrines of impossibility and frustration of purpose to excuse its failure to pay rent. The tenant also argued that then-Governor Cuomo’s various orders relating to the pandemic devastated its business, and that the temporary closure of the business due to these orders constituted a “taking” under the lease.[2]

    The Supreme Court, New York County (Bluth, J.) disagreed. In granting the landlord’s summary judgment motion, the Court found that Governor Cuomo’s executive orders did not constitute a taking since the case did not involve the government condemning the building or invoking the doctrine of eminent domain. Further, the Court found that the doctrines of frustration of purpose and impossibility “have no place in this case.” The Court contended that a temporary hardship like the one described by the defendant does not excuse a tenant’s obligation to pay rent and therefore ruled in favor of the landlord and plaintiff in the case: Bay Plaza Community Center.

    A similar scenario played out between landlord 695 Fifth Owner and tenant Valentino U.S.A.[3]Here, luxury retail and fashion brand Valentino brought suit, contending that the lease of its four-story Valentino Fifth Avenue New York boutique should be terminated, and seeking a determination that Valentino should be entitled to an abatement of any rent claimed due.

    The lease had clearly stated that Valentino would be able to operate as a boutique retail store for customers to view and sample their merchandise in a luxurious setting, in addition to experiencing high-quality service and amenities. The lease also provided that Valentino was required to be open for business and continuously operate under the Valentino brand. Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, including the restrictions, social-distancing measures, a lack of consumer confidence, and a prevailing fear of “non-essential” luxury retail boutiques, Valentino claimed that its business had been “substantially hindered, rendered impractical, unfeasible, and no longer workable.”

    Given the continuing business restrictions even as the shutdown orders eased, Valentino argued that it would be impossible to operate its boutique as initially envisioned under the Lease. Thus, Valentino contended that their continued operation at that location was impracticable, infeasible, unworkable, and/or impossible. Valentino then gave notice to the defendant landlord that they would vacate and surrender the premises by December 31, 2020.

    Despite Valentino’s complaint, the New York County Supreme Court (Borrok, J.) dismissed the case because pursuant to the lease, the parties expressly allocated the risk that Valentino would not be able to operate its business and that Valentino is therefore not forgiven from its performance, including its obligation to pay rent by virtue of a state law.

    The fact that the COVID-19 pandemic was not specifically enumerated by the parties does not change the result because the lease was drafted broadly and did not provide that government regulations and events beyond the reasonable control of the party “delayed in performing work” shall excuse the payment of rent. Furthermore, Valentino’s general allegation that the landlord failed to maintain the premises lacks causation since it appears Valentino continued to operate in the store as of July 22, 2020.

    The challenges faced by the tenants trying to get out of their obligations in these cases – as well as the challenges faced by the landlords spending time and money in Court – illustrate that commercial landlords and tenants are often better served by negotiating their disputes rather than litigating them. CMM has successfully negotiated countless commercial lease issues since the start of the pandemic.

    Please contact us to discuss the path forward.


    [1] Bay Plaza Community Ctr. v Bronx Vistasite Eyecare, Inc., 2021 NY Slip Op 31568(U) May 5, 2021 Supreme Court, New York County

    [2] Under the COVID-19 Emergency Eviction and Foreclosure Act of 2020, a residential or commercial tenant has the option to submit a “hardship declaration” stating that due to COVID-19, they are unable to pay rent. In that case, a landlord would not be able to evict the tenant until the moratorium is lifted (former Governor Cuomo signed an extension of the act in May, extending the moratorium until August 31, 2021; however, in September, Governor Hochul signed into law a new moratorium which is in effect until January 15, 2022). In the Bay Plaza Community Ctr. v Bronx Vistasite Eyecare, Inc., no such declaration was filed.

    [3] Valentino USA v. 693 Fifth Owner LLC, 70 Misc.3d 1218(A) (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty. Jan 27, 2021)

    CMM Attorneys Recognized as 2021 “Super Lawyers” and “Rising Stars”

    Posted: September 30th, 2021

    Campolo, Middleton & McCormick, LLP is proud to announce that ten attorneys at the firm, in multiple practice areas, have been named to the 2021 Super Lawyers list, three of them as a “Rising Star.” The CMM attorneys recognized this year, in practice areas including Business and Corporate, Personal Injury, Real Estate, Business Litigation, Mergers & Acquisitions, Construction Litigation, Employment Litigation, Civil Litigation, and Appeals, are:

    The rigorous Super Lawyers selection process is based on peer evaluations, independent research, and professional achievement in legal practice. The “Rising Stars” recognition denotes superior professional achievement by attorneys who have been in practice for under 10 years or are under age 40. No more than 2.5 percent of lawyers in New York State are named to the Rising Stars list.

    Learn more about CMM’s outstanding legal professionals here.