Category: Uncategorized

“Choice-of-law” provisions, identifying which state’s laws a contract will be interpreted under, are almost universally found in contract “boilerplate.” Businesspeople anxious to get deals done typically focus their attention on the up-front-and-center contractual provisions detailing the terms of the deal, not the boilerplate language concerning jurisdiction, venue, choice-of-law, and other unexciting provisions stuck in at the end, almost like an afterthought. But a recent decision from New York’s Court of Appeals, 2138747 Ontario, Inc. v. Samsung C & T Corporation,[1] reminds businesses and lawyers alike that every single term in a contract – no matter how unimportant it may seem during the drafting process – merits careful consideration before the parties sign.

In Ontario, the issue was the choice-of-law provision – in particular, whether a choice-of-law provision in a contract between non-New York litigants providing that the contract was to be “enforced” under New York law required straightforward application of New York’s six-year statute of limitations for breach of contract actions,[2] or instead whether the “borrowing statute”[3] should be applied.  The borrowing statute of CPLR 202 provides that New York non-residents may bring claims pertaining to causes of action that accrue outside New York only if the action would be timely under both New York and the home jurisdiction’s statute of limitations.

By way of background, most choice-of-law provisions direct a court to apply the substantive law of the chosen state (essentially, laws that concern a litigant’s rights). However, in Ontario, because the provision at issue provided that the contract would be “enforced” according to New York law, the litigants agreed that New York procedural law would also apply (essentially, the law that governs conduct in the courtroom). Rules regarding statutes of limitations – which set the time period within which a litigant may prosecute a claim – are generally considered by New York courts to be procedural.

Against this backdrop, the issue in Ontario was this: since the contract specified that New York procedural law would apply, how should the court reconcile two conflicting procedural rules? Should it enforce the six-year statute of limitations as it would if the breach concerned New York parties? Or should it find a lawsuit timely only if it was timely under both New York and the home jurisdiction’s statute of limitations (pursuant to the borrowing statute)?

Ultimately, the Ontario court ruled that the borrowing statute applies, requiring the claim to be timely in both venues, in part because it was in direct contrast to the long-standing common law rule that the procedural law of the venue controls. In other words, if the legislature upends long-standing legal traditions by statute, a reviewing court must consider that break to be principally important, and should uphold its legal effect.
Notably, the Ontario court explicitly did not address what the effect would be if the parties had expressly provided that the contract would be subject to New York’s six-year statute of limitations, and left open that such a provision might run afoul of CPLR 201, which generally prevents elongation of statutes of limitation by contract.

The takeaway from this case? If you are a non-resident contracting to perform services outside of New York, and your contract stipulates that New York procedural law applies, be aware that you swallow that procedural law whole, and may be unable to contract around your home jurisdiction’s shorter statute of limitations. And more broadly, this case serves as an important lesson. It’s often the provisions that seem the most innocuous during drafting that can cause the biggest headaches later.

[1] 31 N.Y.3d 372.
[2] CPLR 213(2).
[3] CPLR 202.

CMM is proud to announce that litigator David Green has been recognized as a Super Lawyers “Rising Star,” which denotes superior professional achievement by attorneys who have been in practice for under 10 years or who are under age 40. While up to five percent of lawyers in New York State are named to Super Lawyers, no more than 2.5 percent are named to the Rising Stars list. The rigorous selection process includes independent research and peer evaluations.

David represents businesses and individuals in business disputes, personal injury, landlord/tenant, and other types of litigation.

“We’re very proud of David’s legal work and dedication to superior client service,” said CMM Partner and trial attorney Scott Middleton. “His selection as a Rising Star reflects the firm’s emphasis on recruitment and rigorous training. He has a bright future at CMM ahead of him.”

By Ken Schachter, Newsday

The largest shareholder of Hauppauge-based TSR Inc. is waging a proxy fight against incumbent management ahead of the Nov. 28 annual meeting.
Manhattan-based Zeff Capital LP issued a proxy on Oct. 17 that seeks to replace two incumbent directors with dissident candidates and roll back a shareholder rights measure announced Aug. 29.

Such measures, also known as “poison pills,” sometimes are adopted by companies to dilute the holdings of unwanted suitors in efforts to fend off hostile acquisition attempts.

Zeff Capital’s proxy also calls for an annual election for all seven board seats.

The proxy challenge by Zeff Capital, which controls about 22.3 percent of TSR common stock, is the latest move in a months-long struggle over control of the IT staffing company.

In a Sept. 19 letter to board member Raymond Roel, Zeff Capital described the poison pill as “onerous” and said that chief executive Christopher Hughes was “focused on lining his own pockets.”

Christopher Hughes, who was named TSR CEO and chairman when his father, Joseph Hughes, retired from those posts in July 2017, said Monday he would have “no comment right now.”

In June 2018, Joseph Hughes and his wife, Winifred Hughes, sent a letter to TSR’s board calling for the company to be sold. The following month they sold their 41.8 percent stake to Zeff Capital and two other institutional investors.

“Family companies are great–while they work,” said Christine Malafi, a partner at Ronkonkoma-based Campolo, Middleton & McCormick LLP. “It’s family, which doubles the emotions.”

Zeff Capital and the other two investors, QAR Industries Inc., based in Mineral Wells, Texas, and Fintech Consulting LLC, based in Iselin, New Jersey, together now own about 48 percent of the common stock, according to Bloomberg.

When asked Monday about the proxy battle, Daniel Zeff, president of Zeff Capital, said, “I can’t comment at this time.”

Shares of TSR rose 4.5 percent Monday to close at $5.85. Twelve months ago, the stock was trading at $4.95.

To defend its decision to adopt a poison pill, management should communicate its strategic plans to stockholders, “if nothing more than to shed light on its opposition to Zeff,” said Greg Stoller, a partner at Lake Success-based law firm Abrams, Fensterman.

Malafi said proxy fights “are expensive” as costs for legal advice and soliciting proxies from shareholders can mount.

In the quarter ended Aug. 31, TSR reported net income of $37,795 on revenue of $16.6 million. That was down from net income of $141,089 on revenue of $17 million in the year-earlier period.

TSR, founded in 1969, has offices in Hauppauge, Manhattan, and Edison, New Jersey. It provides IT staffing services to the utility, insurance, publishing, pharmaceutical and financial services industries.
Read the full article here.

For an entrepreneur who has devoted his or her life to building a business, the idea of selling it – whether this year or in a decade – brings up sensitive questions about identity, family, timing, and value. Not to mention, managing the day-to-day details of selling a business can quickly become all-consuming to a business owner whose hands are already more than full. Enter Protegrity Advisors. A mergers and acquisitions advisory firm based in Ronkonkoma, Protegrity serves companies and family-owned businesses with revenue from $5 million to $100 million across a range of industries, managing the entire M&A process for a typically underserved sector of the market. Protegrity’s goal: help Long Island business owners navigate what is likely the most complex and emotionally fraught transaction of their lives – and obtain maximum value.

CEO Gregg Schor has lived and breathed M&A for more than two decades, managing the process for organizations of all sizes and industries as both an outside advisor and in-house executive. “The turning point for me came several years ago when I learned about business owners who sold their company at an undervalued purchase price to the first potential buyer that came along,” Schor recently explained to Joe Campolo, who also serves as chairman of Protegrity’s advisory board. “Companies in this revenue range are the lifeblood of Long Island, but they’re typically below the threshold of traditional investment banks and above the sophistication of business brokers.” Seeing a significant gap in the market, Schor decided to leverage his 20-plus years of experience to establish Protegrity Advisors.

The firm works to prepare clients for a potential sale ahead of time, before they’re under the microscope of potential buyers. If there’s no potential buyer in place, they research, identify, qualify, and confidentially contact prospective buyers and develop marketing materials, tapping into their network of private equity firms, public and private companies, family offices, search funds, and other types of buyers. Protegrity also prepares and presents financial statements in a manner consistent with buyer expectations and which credibly maximizes adjusted earnings, negotiates the purchase price and related terms, supervises the exchange of information and the due diligence process, quarterbacks the client’s legal, accounting, wealth management, and other service providers, and provides additional assistance as needed to complete the transaction. (Protegrity also offers valuation services, works with clients seeking to buy businesses or divest business units, and has developed expertise in the automotive dealership sector as well.)

The Protegrity team and advisory board are comprised of serial entrepreneurs, business owners, and former private and public company C-Suite executives who have started and sold companies, giving them critical insight into the M&A process from a client’s perspective. “It’s a tremendous responsibility to be trusted with selling a company that may have been started by a prior generation and whose proceeds are meant to take care of future generations,” Schor said. “We take on that responsibility with the commensurate level of dedication and respect.”

Long Island is home to a substantial number of successful companies in a wide range of sectors, and the region’s demographics and population, location in the New York metropolitan area, and proximity to world-class universities and international airports make Long Island an ideal platform for future growth. “I believe these factors position many Long Island business owners for successful exits, and at the same time, make it attractive for buyers to remain, hire, and invest in Long Island post-transaction and for the long-term,” Schor explained. Protegrity’s focus on growing Long Island business recently earned the company a Business Achievement Award from HIA-LI, which recognizes companies making an extraordinary impact on the Long Island economy.

There’s a wealth of opportunity on Long Island for businesses to flourish. Whether you want to grow or make a successful exit, Protegrity can help expand your possibilities. Learn more at https://protegrityadvisors.com/.
You can also view clips from Joe Campolo’s recent CMM Live interview with Gregg Schor here.

Protegrity CEO Gregg Schor recently discussed the M&A climate on Long Island with CMM Managing Partner and Protegrity Advisory Board Chairman Joe Campolo. Next photo: In 2017, Protegrity Advisors was the winner of a prestigious HIA-LI Business Achievement Award, which honors Long Island businesses that demonstrate growth, leadership, and commitment to the region. Gregg Schor also received a SmartCEO Future 50 Award, which recognizes business leaders that embody the entrepreneurial spirit critical for success.

Just hanging around the office: Protegrity Advisory Board Chairman Joe Campolo, Director of M&A Bruce Newman, CEO Gregg Schor, and Research Analyst Robert Hitzig pose for the camera. Next photo: Gregg is all smiles as he gets ready for CMM Live to start.

Showtime! On CMM Live, Gregg and Joe discussed how to prepare your business for an eventual sale at maximum value, even if selling isn’t in your immediate plans. Next photo: Research Analyst Bobby Hitzig identifies and qualifies potential buyers from Protegrity’s databases and network of U.S. and international relationships.

Director of M&A Bruce Newman and CEO Gregg Schor show off their HIA-LI Business Achievement Award in 2017. Next photo: Friends, family, and colleagues attended the HIA-LI Business Achievement Awards Luncheon to support Protegrity’s success.

Bruce Newman and Gregg Schor walk the red carpet to receive their HIA-LI Business Achievement Award. Next photo: Protegrity recently welcomed Robert Pospischil to the team. The former President and CEO of Bissett Nursery and Bissett Equipment Corporation, Bob brings over 30 years of experience to the M&A industry.

By Christine Malafi

Summer may be over, but if your office is like mine, interns are a welcome presence year-round. Hiring interns can be a mutually beneficial experience for both the employer and the intern. Interns develop hands-on experience in a field they are interested in pursuing, and a company gets a fresh take on things from the minds of a younger generation. As you get ready to welcome another round of interns this fall, make sure you understand how to pay them.

Before bringing interns on board, companies must determine whether the New York State minimum wage and overtime rules apply to their interns. In general, an intern is exempt from the New York State Minimum Wage Act and Orders (meaning, the intern does not need to be paid minimum wage, if anything) only if the intern and the business are not in an employment relationship. Note, you and your intern are in an employment relationship unless all eleven of the following criteria apply. (This test applies only to the state Minimum Wage Act and Orders, not unemployment insurance or workers’ compensation.)

1. The training you provide to your intern is close to the training an educational program would provide (for example, the intern’s school oversees the program and provides school credit).
2. The training your business provides primarily benefits the intern.
3. The intern works under close supervision and does not displace regular employees.
4. Your intern’s activities do not immediately or solely provide an advantage to you or your business.
5. The interns are not necessarily entitled to a job after the internship ends and are free to take jobs elsewhere.
6. The interns are notified in writing that they will not receive wages and are not considered employees for minimum wage purposes.
7. Training must be directly supervised by individuals who are knowledgeable and experienced in that field.
8. Interns do not receive employment benefits (health, dental, pension, retirement, etc.).
9. The training you provide is not tailor-made for your business; it is more general and can be used in similar businesses.
10. The screening process for interns is not the same process your company uses when hiring full-time employees.
11. Ads or posts for the training program discuss education and hands-on experience rather than employment opportunities. However, you can state that your company is interested in hiring an intern for full-time employment once full training is completed.

Do all the above criteria describe the relationship with your intern? If not, the intern must be paid pursuant to the state minimum wage and overtime laws. Please contact us with any questions or to discuss your unique situation. Here’s to a productive experience for both of you!

Check out our blog to view the 2020 minimum wage requirements. For more on our labor services, visit our Labor and Employment page.

A standard provision typically included in non-compete agreements is a “partial enforceability” provision that gives the Court the power to modify or “blue pencil” the terms of the agreement if the Court finds the restrictive covenant to be overly broad. For example, if a Court finds that a non-compete provision restricting an employee from working for a competitor anywhere within 100 miles of its former employer is too broad and not necessary to protect the former employer’s business interests, the partial enforceability provision would permit the Court to limit the geographic restriction to say, 10 miles, if the Court deems that narrowed limitation suitable. However, just because a partial enforceability provision is included in a non-compete agreement does not mean a Court will modify the terms to “fix” an otherwise unenforceable agreement and, many times, the Court will simply decline to enforce the agreement in its entirety.

One recent example of this came out of the Appellate Division, Second Department in Long Island Minimally Invasive Surgery, P.C. v. St. John’s Episcopal Hospital, 2018 NY Slip Op 05674 (2d Dep’t 2018) which affirmed the earlier decision of Justice Driscoll in Nassau County Supreme Court. Plaintiff was a medical practice that performed weight loss and other general surgeries. It had seven different offices throughout the New York metropolitan area. Defendant Javier Andrade was a surgeon hired by Plaintiff. Upon being hired, Andrade signed an employment agreement with a restrictive covenant prohibiting him, for two years upon the expiration of his employment, from performing any type of surgery within 10 miles of any of Plaintiff’s seven offices and affiliated hospitals. During his employment with Plaintiff, Andrade worked at only two of Plaintiff’s Nassau County offices and a hospital in Nassau County. When Andrade left Plaintiff, he went to work for Defendant St. John’s Episcopal Hospital.

Although Andrade worked for St. John’s in an area that was outside of the restricted area, St. John’s itself fell within the restricted area. As a result, Plaintiff commenced the action for breach of the restrictive covenant.

Prior to any discovery, both Andrade and St. John’s moved for summary judgment to dismiss the Complaint and their motion was granted. Plaintiff appealed. On appeal, the Appellate Division held that the lower court correctly determined that the geographical restriction was overly broad and geographically unreasonable “because it effectively barred [Andrade] for performing surgery, his chosen field of medicine, in the New York metropolitan area” and Plaintiff had failed to show why such a restriction was necessary to protect its interests especially because the restriction included areas where Andrade never even worked when he was employed by Plaintiff.

Importantly, the Appellate Division also agreed with the lower Court’s refusal to modify the restrictive covenant to make it enforceable. Citing prior decisions in Scott, Stackrow & Co., C.P.A.’s, P.C. v. Skavina, 9 A.D.3d 805 (3d Dep’t 2004) and BDO Seidman v. Hirshberg, 93 N.Y.2d 382 (1999), the Court noted, “The determination of whether an overly broad restrictive covenant should be enforced to the extent necessary to protect an employer’s legitimate interest involves ‘a case specific analysis, focusing on the conduct of the employer in imposing the terms of the agreement.’

Partial enforcement may be justified if an employer demonstrates, in addition to having a legitimate business interest, ‘an absence of overreaching, coercive use of dominant bargaining power, or other anti-competitive misconduct.’ ‘Factors weighing against partial enforcement are the imposition of the covenant in connection with hiring or continued employment—as opposed to, for example, imposition in connection with a promotion to a position of responsibility and trust—the existence of coercion or a general plan of the employer to forestall competition, and the employer’s knowledge that the covenant was overly broad.’”

In this case, the Appellate Division agreed that partial enforcement was not warranted because Plaintiff failed to show that there was good faith on its part, that there was no overreaching in having Andrade agree to the restrictive covenant which was a prerequisite to being hired, and there was also evidence from the record that Plaintiff refused to negotiate the non-compete language.

What is becoming clear from recent Court decisions on restrictive covenants, including this one, is that how and under what circumstances employers implement restrictive covenants on their employees is as important as the language contained within the restrictive covenants themselves.

By Patrick McCormick and Richard DeMaio

What do a baker and the President of the United States have in common? After reading two of the most highly anticipated opinions of the October 2017 term, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission and Trump v. Hawaii, some might say the ability to restrict access based on religion. In these opinions, the Court grappled with sensitive issues balancing First Amendment religious freedoms against the public interest. Both opinions analyzed whether laws were neutral toward religion in light of public officials’ statements evidencing religious animus. Weeks after finding that expressions of hostility to religion by state officials during an administrative hearing toward a baker who declined to serve a same-sex couple violated the baker’s freedom of religion, the Court deemed anti-Muslim statements made by President Trump and his advisors as irrelevant to claims of religious discrimination.

In Masterpiece, the Court weighed in on when a public accommodation law must yield to a business owner’s First Amendment rights. As is common in many states, Colorado law bans discrimination based on sexual orientation by businesses serving the public. Despite this law, Jack Phillips, a conservative Christian baker, refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple because he said doing so would violate his sincerely held religious beliefs. A Colorado civil rights agency ruled that the baker violated the state’s public accommodation law. If the baker wanted to bake cakes for opposite-sex weddings, he would have to do the same for same-sex weddings. A Colorado Court upheld the ruling. The baker appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court narrowly ruled in favor of the baker, 5-4. The opinion hinged on statements made by commissioners of the Colorado agency. The “neutral and respectful consideration to which Phillips was entitled was compromised” by statements made by commissioners of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Comm’n, 138 S. Ct. 1719, 1729 (2018). During hearings, commissioners “went so far as to compare Phillips’ invocation of his sincerely held religious beliefs to defenses of slavery and the Holocaust” and “endorsed the view that religious beliefs cannot legitimately be carried into the public sphere or commercial domain, implying that religious beliefs and persons are less than fully welcome in Colorado’s business community.” Id. The opinion focused so heavily on the religious animus displayed during the hearings that the Court did not even rule on the main issue in the case—whether the Colorado law compelled the baker to endorse a message that violated his sincerely held religious beliefs. Instead, the opinion left open the possibility that a business owner’s religious beliefs might have to yield a state’s public accommodation law in a future case.

The opinion noted that while “the religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views and in some instances protected forms of expression,” society has also recognized “gay persons and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth.” Id. at 1727. But in this case, where a state commission bears the responsibility of enforcing anti-discrimination laws, such laws must be enforced in a fair and neutral manner not tainted with religious animus. Based on this, the Court held that the Colorado Commission violated the free exercise clause.

Despite religiously charged statements being the death knell in Masterpiece, weeks later in Trump v. Hawaii, the Trump administration’s travel ban survived scrutiny. The travel ban restricted immigration to the United States by citizens of eight countries, most of which are predominantly Muslim. Both during his campaign and throughout his presidency, President Trump and his administration issued numerous statements evidencing religious animus towards Muslims. President Trump issued a formal statement “calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.” Trump v. Hawaii, 138 S. Ct. 2392, 2417 (2018) (Sotomayor, J., dissenting). This statement was maintained on his website until May 2017, several months into his presidency. President Trump also asserted that “[w]e’re having problems with the Muslims, and we’re having problems with Muslims coming into the country.”  Id.

Unlike in Masterpiece, the majority in Trump disregarded the Trump administration’s repeated anti-Muslim statements and instead relied on national security justifications to uphold the travel ban. The majority noted that ordinarily it would only consider whether the travel ban is neutral on its face. However, even looking beyond the text of the travel ban and the Trump administration’s inflammatory statements, the Court held that the ban still survives because it is based on a legitimate purpose: “preventing entry of nationals who cannot be adequately vetted and inducing other nations to improve their practices.” Id. at 2421.

Justice Sotomayor lamented the seemingly contradictory holdings of Masterpiece and Trump in her trenchant dissent in Trump. Justice Sotomayor cited Masterpiece, questioning how the Court could find that just weeks earlier state commissioners’ statements regarding religion were persuasive in finding a violation of the First Amendment, but in Trump the majority completely disregarded the administration’s anti-Muslim statements. Justice Sotomayor complained that the majority “blindly accept[ed] the government’s misguided invitation to sanction a discriminatory policy motivated by animosity toward a disfavored group, all in the name of a superficial claim of national security.” Id. at 2448.

It is difficult to reconcile how the Court came to such divergent conclusions finding that public officials’ statements were relevant in Masterpiece, but irrelevant in Trump. It is true that both cases involved allegations of religious animus based on officials’ statements. However, the cases involved completely different claims and circumstances. Masterpiece concerned the free exercise clause, while Trump concerned the establishment clause. This point is critical because each claim invokes different levels of scrutiny. The free exercise clause can trigger strict scrutiny for per se violations. Had the free exercise clause been raised on appeal in Trump, perhaps there would be a different outcome. The anti-Muslim statements may have been deemed per se violations, triggering strict scrutiny when determining whether the government’s national security justification was genuine. However, Trump was merely an establishment clause case affording the government a much more deferential level of scrutiny. Moreover, the statements in both cases arose under different circumstances: in Masterpiece, an adjudicatory hearing to enforce an anti-discrimination law, and in Trump, pre- and post-presidential campaign statements about foreign affairs. In Masterpiece, the statements of the commissioners were intertwined with the application of the Colorado law. On the contrary, in Trump, while the administration’s statements were distasteful, they did not affect the application of the travel ban. On its face, the ban is neutral toward religion and justified by national security interests, which is all that is needed to pass muster under an establishment clause test.

The government bears the constitutional duty to make and enforce laws in a manner neutral toward religion. The government should never compel an individual to endorse a specific message just because the individual has a sincerely held belief contrary to the government.  Likewise, the government should never treat individuals unjustly regardless of whether they follow Christ, Allah, someone else, or no one at all. Considering the divisiveness of the current social and political landscape there will surely be protégés to Masterpiece and Trump. There will be another business owner who rejects a customer based on sincerely held religious beliefs, and the travel ban will continue to be argued over in the court of public opinion along with the administration’s family separation policy, and who knows what the Court will decide then. For now, it is certain that the same-sex couple in Masterpiece did not get their cake, but President Trump got his travel ban.

A friend of famed golf course architect Devereaux Emmet once remarked, “Emmet could not possibly conceive of any other use [for] any given piece of real estate…except to lay out golf links on it.” And so, when Emmet and a group of NYC businessmen purchased 140 acres of land in East Setauket in 1915, that’s exactly what he did. Over 100 years later, St. George’s Golf and Country Club – the course Emmet designed for his closest friends and relatives to enjoy – boasts his original timeless design, repeatedly earning a coveted spot on Golfweek’s Top 100 Classic Courses in America (sharing the honor with some of the most famous courses in the nation). If you’re looking for a hidden gem among Long Island golf courses – as well as close friendships, a family atmosphere, business opportunities, impeccable service, and the best steak anywhere – St. George’s checks all the boxes.

Devereaux Emmet observed the building of the celebrated National Golf Links of America in Southampton, and golfers can feel the similarities at St. George’s, says General Manager Brian Curtin. Curtin may be partial, but Golfweek agrees, first bestowing the honor of Top 100 Classic Courses in America on St. George’s in 2011 and every year since – a remarkable recognition given that there are approximately 6,000 classic courses in the United States (built before 1960). St. George’s prioritizes the pace of play, offering the ability to play a round in a reasonable amount of time (two and a half to three hours for a twosome, four hours or less for a foursome). Tee times aren’t required – another unique feature – and the club offers tournaments for players of all skill levels (the Junior PGA League, ages six to 12, recently won the Long Island championship). St. George’s is fortunate to have dynamic instructors and mentors in Head Golf Pro Chris Crenshaw and First Assistant Golf Pro Nick Banks, who make it their mission to adapt to each student’s learning style.

While the golf gets top billing, the dining experience merits its own spotlight. Head Chef Bill Kakavas has created delicious meals at St. George’s for the past 25 years, getting to know the members and their palates. His seasonal menus feature a blend of traditional comfort food (a 24-ounce T-bone steak) and modern food trends (Mediterranean branzino filet with stewed zucchini) to appeal to a multi-generational membership. Dinner is served Wednesdays, Fridays, and Sundays from April to January 2, and the newly added pub menu on the other evenings has been a huge success.

Members rave about the dedicated staff, headed by Food and Beverage Manager Joelle Battelli. She encourages bartenders to get creative; members can try something new with the cocktail of the day. Reflecting the club’s commitment to creating custom-tailored experiences, members help curate the wine list and enjoy the use of the club for private events for family celebrations, office parties, and golf outings. CMM’s Joe Campolo, who joined St. George’s in 2012, pointed out, “With such a great resource, why go to another restaurant?”

Frank Morgigno, CEO of Applied Technologies of NY, President of St. George’s since last fall, has prioritized initiatives to welcome the new members who represent the club’s future. His efforts are paying off: in the past year, the majority of new families are junior members (through age 39). A variety of memberships at different price points appeal to a diverse membership; family, individual, and weekday memberships are offered, and even a “social” membership for those who don’t golf. Indeed, there’s plenty to keep you busy at St. George’s even if you’re not a golfer. The House Committee plans a packed calendar every year featuring the traditional St. Patrick’s Day Party and Labor Day Clam Bake to new events such as Motown Night, Hawaiian Luau, and Western Night. The recent addition of yoga has been a hit, and under Morgigno’s leadership, the board is exploring plans for a new fitness center, bocce ball and tennis courts, a fire pit, and day care services.

At this exciting time in the life of the club, General Manager Brian Curtin is responsible for the clubhouse, pro shop, and office staff. As a teenager he worked in kitchens as a dishwasher and after college worked his way up, working two stints at Shinnecock Hills Golf Club (first as Banquet Manager and then as Sous Chef), at Lido Golf Club (Executive Chef), owning his own catering business, and serving as General Manager at Great Rock Golf Club before joining St. George’s as General Manager in 2016. Members and staff agree that his deep level of experience has already made an extraordinary impact.

With all the club options on Long Island, why St. George’s? As Curtin recently explained, it’s truly a hidden jewel. “To see the excitement of people when they’re here… we take great pride in that,” he says, as well as in the attention to detail of the department heads and staff, all of whom make a point to get to know new members right away and make them feel welcome. Social and business opportunities also abound: as Morgigno explains, “It’s not cliquey – everyone is friendly. You’ll develop great relationships and find someone to play with.”

Learn more at http://www.stgeorgesgolf.com/Home.aspx.
 
Joe Campolo, St. George’s President Frank Morgigno, and General Manager Brian Curtin enjoy the fresh air on the spacious back deck. Next photo: St. George’s Golf and Country Club was designed by pioneering golf course architect Devereux Emmet in 1915. According to Golf Club Atlas, “This was going to be [Emmet’s] course for his friends and relatives and he spent his time getting it right. St. George’s defining characteristic is startlingly unique holes on American soil.”
 
The bar is a welcoming spot to catch up with friends and build new relationships. Bartenders are encouraged to get creative with unique “cocktails of the day.” 
 
Joe Campolo and Brian Curtin enjoy the sunshine and the view. Next photo: St. George’s Golf and Country Club formally opened on June 23, 1917 with an exhibition amateur-professional match to benefit the Red Cross. Over 100 years later, St. George’s still features the same original design.
 
Recent restoration projects to the links style course, including tree removal, fairway expansion, and asphalt cart path removal, beautified the grounds and honored the original design. In 2011, St. George’s was honored with inclusion in Golfweek Magazine’s list of Top 100 Classic Courses in America and has received the distinction every year since – a remarkable recognition given that there are approximately 6,000 classic courses in the United States (built before 1960). St. George’s shares the category with well-known names including Shinnecock Hills Golf Club, National Golf Links of America, and Maidstone Club.
 
Whether you’re hosting a golf outing, a private party, or just enjoying a quiet meal, the dining and hospitality staff at St. George’s work tirelessly to deliver impeccable service. The recent addition of Joelle Battelli as Food and Beverage Manager has further helped create flawless events.  Executive Chef Bill Kakavas has created delicious meals at St. George’s for the past 25 years. He spends time getting to know the members and creating menus that blend traditional comfort food with modern dishes. 
 
The St. George’s wine list is curated with the recommendations and preferences of the membership in mind. Next photo: CMM’s Joe Campolo bumped into Flexible Systems’ Marty Schmitt at the club on a recent morning.
 
The club’s 101-year history is on full display: Ward Melville, St. George’s President 1937-1945.

 
Frank Melville, Jr., St. George’s President 1929-1934. St. George’s honors its past while always moving forward, introducing new initiatives to appeal to the club’s future leaders.