News (All) - Page 28 of 163 - Campolo, Middleton & McCormick, LLP

Judicial Dissolution: An Uphill Battle

Posted: August 5th, 2021

Published In: The Suffolk Lawyer

Tags: commercial litigation, corporate, startups

When drafting limited liability company operating agreements, some variation of the words “The LLC is formed to conduct any lawful business activity” is used to describe the purpose of the entity. The wisdom of this approach was called into question in a recent judicial dissolution proceeding that came before the New York County Commercial Division (Masley, J.). Across the East River, on the very same date, the Commercial Division in Queens also issued a decision in a judicial dissolution proceeding (Livote, J.), involving shareholder oppression in a corporation. These recent decisions serve as a reminder to corporate shareholders and LLC members – and their attorneys – that dissolving a business entity is far more difficult than creating it.

Broad Purpose Clause: Lazar v. Attena LLC[1]

Petitioners Lazar and Sheinbaum commenced a special proceeding pursuant to LLC Law § 702 to dissolve three LLCs: Attena LLC, Hemera LLC, and Nessa LLC, all of which had been formed during the early 2010s. They also sought the appointment of a receiver to wind up the LLCs’ affairs as well as to restrain respondents Mor and Zichron from filing tax returns on the LLCs’ behalf without prior express written consent of the petitioners or the receiver.

In their petition, Lazar and Sheinbaum contended that the sole purpose of the LLCs was to acquire, own, and operate five multi-family properties in Manhattan. All the associated properties were sold by December 2015, rendering the intended purpose of the LLCs moot. Asserting that the LLCs had therefore “run their course,” the petitioners sought judicial dissolution.

LLC Law § 702 provides that “‘[o]n application by or for a member, the supreme court in the judicial district in which the office of the limited liability company is located may decree dissolution of a limited liability company whenever it is [n]ot reasonably practicable to carry on the business in conformity with the articles of organization or operating agreement.’ Thus, the court must determine whether it is ‘reasonably practicable to carry on the business’” of the LLC (citing Matter of 1545 Ocean Ave., LLC, 72 A.D.3d 121 (2d Dep’t 2010). To succeed, the petitioner must establish that “‘(1) the management of the entity is unable or unwilling to reasonably permit or promote the stated purpose of the entity to be realized or achieved, or (2) continuing the entity is financially unfeasible.’” Id. at 131.

Upon the Court’s examination, contrary to the petitioners’ assertions, the operating agreements of the LLCs all defined each entity’s purpose as “any lawful business purpose” – not to acquire, own, and operate the properties. The Court noted that the petitioners offered no evidence to support the claim that this general purpose of the LLCs to engage in “any lawful activity” was no longer occurring. The court found that the respective operating agreements did not limit the business purpose of the LLCs and that the petitioners provided no evidence that the LLCs were in “financial turmoil, insolvent, or otherwise cannot meet their debts and obligations” (a second potential basis for dissolution). The Court therefore dismissed the petition, pointing out that “Oppressive conduct is not sufficient.”

Lazar is a sharp reminder that when petitioning for judicial dissolution under LLC Law § 702, a broad purpose clause in an operating agreement will be a potential hurdle that must be overcome. When forming a new company, the last thing business partners want to think about it is dissolving it based on a future disagreement. But the LLC members and attorney should discuss this clause upon the LLC formation, and not treat it as an afterthought.

Shareholder Oppression: Hammad v. Jamal Kamal Corp.[2]

Petitioner Nedal Hammad was the 25% owner (as well as the president) of respondent corporations Maysa Realty Corp. and Jamal Realty Corp. (“Jamal Kamal”), both real estate holding companies. Nedal’s brothers (Jamal, Kamal, Omar, and Samir) owned the remaining 75% of the corporations.

In February 2017, the brothers made fourteen demands to Nedal regarding company operations. One demand was to stop making payments to Highcrest, another company owned by the brothers, because they thought Nedal was using Highcrest to drain money from the companies to enrich himself. Nedal continued to make payments to Highcrest, making payments for $29,850 from Maysa and $29,975 from Jamal Kamal in March 2017. Later that year, Nedal made distributions of $150,000 from Maysa and $160,000 from Jamal Kamal to himself and the brothers, including Jamal, without their approval. The brothers did not cash the distribution checks. Thereafter, the brothers elected Jamal president. Jamal, as president, retroactively changed the 2017 distributions made to Nedal. Following his removal as president, Nedal filed a petition for judicial dissolution of the companies under BCL § 1104-a.

Additionally, in late 2018, Maysa and Jamal Kamal made distributions of $509,400 and $499,900, respectively. Nedal’s share of these distributions were applied to his outstanding loans that were created by the re-classifications. These distributions were calculated to reduce the balance of Nedal’s loans to zero. Nedal was not notified of the distributions.

Pursuant to Business Corporation Law (BCL) 1104-a, a holder of 20% or more of the shares of a business corporation (which Nedal held) may seek dissolution if “the directors or those in control of the corporation have been guilty of illegal, fraudulent or oppressive actions toward the complaining shareholders.” Dissolution also is warranted if “the property or assets of the corporation are being looted, wasted or diverted.”

In determining whether to proceed with involuntary dissolution, the court must take into account (1) “Whether liquidation of the corporation is the only feasible means whereby the petitioners may reasonably expect to obtain a fair return on their investment; and (2) Whether liquidation of the corporation is reasonably necessary for the protection of the rights and interests of any substantial number of shareholders or of the petitioners.”

Here, the Court held that judicial dissolution was not warranted. The removal of Nedal as president did not constitute oppressive conduct. However, no acceptable justification was offered for the reclassification of the payments to Highcrest; although the brothers alleged that Nedal was self-dealing through Highcrest, they did not prove the allegations.

The Court also noted that Nedal’s reasonable expectations as a shareholder were to receive a dividend in proportion to his ownership. The oppressive conduct against Nedal was to remedy what the brothers viewed as his unauthorized and oppressive conduct. After the 2018 distributions were made to “equalize” the distributions among all the shareholders, the Court did not find that any “future oppressive conduct” was intended by the brothers, and Nedal will share in future distributions. Therefore, dissolution would not be an appropriate remedy. Instead, the appropriate remedy was to pay to Nedal the amounts paid to Highcrest that the brothers improperly reclassified as loans.

Hammad is a reminder that courts have a great deal of discretion when determining petitions for judicial dissolution in shareholder oppression suits. Specifically, when majority shareholders are able to continue company operations, judicial dissolution may not be the appropriate remedy; monetary damages for past wrongdoings may be more appropriate. Like Lazar, Hammad reminds us that breaking up can be hard to do.

[1] 2020 WL 5439528 (NY County Sup. Ct., Sept. 9, 2020)

[2]2020 WL 5755548 (Queens County Sup. Ct., Sept. 9, 2020)

High Bar for Tenants: Court Sides with Landlord in Harassment Case

Posted: July 29th, 2021

By: Patrick McCormick, Esq. email

Tags: landlord-tenant

Sitting in a rare en banc hearing in Francis v. Kings Park Manor, Inc. 992 F.3d 67 (2d Cir. 2021), the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated the panel determination holding and affirmed the District Court’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims of intentional discrimination under the Fair Housing Act of 1968; Housing Discrimination claims under 45 USCA §§1981 and 1982; Housing Discrimination under NYSHRL; and negligent Infliction of emotional distress. The Court held that a claim by a tenant “alleging that his landlord failed to respond to reports of race-based harassment by a fellow tenant fails to state a claim for intentional discrimination.” The Court reasoned that “landlords typically do not, and therefore cannot be presumed to exercise the degree of control over tenants.”

Background

As alleged in the Complaint, Donahue Francis, a Black man, rented and lived in an apartment at Kings Park Manor, an apartment complex owned and operated by defendant Kings Park Manor, Inc. (“KPM”). Throughout 2012, Francis’s neighbor verbally attacked and attempted to intimidate him by making racist insults and at least one death threat. In March 2012, Francis reported his neighbor to the Suffolk County police, who informed KPM of the reported events. Francis renewed his lease “without comment” on May 1, 2012; thereafter, Francis wrote three letters to KPM, in which he recounted his neighbor’s behavior, the police involvement, and his neighbor’s arrest for aggravated harassment in August 2012. However, he did not allege in the complaint that he ever requested any action by KPM. His neighbor pleaded guilty to a charge of harassment in April 2013.

The Complaint

Francis’s Complaint asserted claims of racial discrimination against KPM under the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”), Section 1 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, as amended and codified at 42 U.S.C. §§1981 and 1982, and the New York State Human Rights Law (“NYSHRL”), as well as a common law claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress. The Complaint also included a breach of contract claim against KPM. KPM moved to dismiss all claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The District Court for the Eastern District of New York denied the motion as to Francis’s breach of contract claim, but otherwise granted it by dismissing Francis’s other claims against KPM.

A divided panel in the Second Circuit issued an opinion affirming the dismissal of Francis’s claims for negligent infliction of emotional distress but reversed the dismissal of his discrimination claims. Rehearing en banc was later ordered.

The Court’s Analysis

The Second Circuit, in a 7-5 en banc ruling, vacated the panel decision and affirmed the judgment of the District Court, holding that “(1) a landlord cannot be presumed to have the degree of control over tenants necessary to impose liability under the FHA for tenant-on-tenant harassment, (2) Francis fail[ed] to state a claim that the KPM defendant intentionally discriminated against him on the basis of race in violation of the FHA, Civil Rights Act, or the NYSHRL; and, (3) Francis fail[ed] to state a claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress against KPM under New York law.”

Because the plaintiff’s claims were not premised on direct evidence of landlord discrimination, the Court analyzed the claims under the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework.[1] The Court found the complaint “lacks even ‘minimal support for the proposition’ that the KPM defendants were motivated by discrimination intent” and that “only untethered speculation supports an inference of racial animus of the part of the KPM defendants.” The Court recognized that Francis claimed these allegations establish that defendants intentionally discriminated against him under the “deliberate indifference” theory of liability. The Court held that, even if this theory applied, “Francis has failed to state a claim because his complaint provides no factual basis to infer that the KPM defendants had “substantial control over [the harassing and the context in which the known harassment occur[red].” Nor can such control be reasonably presumed to exist in the typical arms-length relationship between landlord and tenant, unlike the custodial environments of schools and persons.”

The Court further explained that the typical powers of a landlord over a tenant – such as the power to evict – does not establish the “substantial control” necessary to state a “deliberate indifference” claim under the FHA.

Significantly, the Second Circuit went to lengths to distinguish the Seventh Circuit’s determination in Wetzel v. Glen St. Andrew Living Community, LLC 901 F.3d 856 (7^th Cir. 2018), which “recognized a deliberate indifference theory of liability for a claim of discrimination under the FHH.” The Second Circuit distinguished Wetzel because there the allegations “gave rise to the plausible inference that the defendant landlord had unusual supervisory control over both the premises and the harassing tenants.” In addition, the Second Circuit found it significant that the landlord in Wetzel “was alleged to have affirmatively acted against the plaintiff.”

The Court also concluded that even if KPM had “substantial control,” Francis would have still failed to state an FHA claim for discrimination under a “deliberate indifference” theory because KPM’s inaction was not “clearly unreasonable” in light of the circumstances described in the Complaint.

Conclusion

While the Court’s decision emphasizes the particular facts in this case, it seems that the Court’s analysis and application of the law to those facts, coupled with its analysis of the Second Circuit’s determination in Wetzel, result in a very high bar for tenants to overcome. The decision also gives significant protections to landlords faced with intentional discrimination claims based on allegations that the landlord failed to respond to allegations of fellow tenant’s race-based harassment.

[1] McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). Plaintiffs have specific, “reduced” pleading burdens in cases subject to the McDonnell Douglas analysis. For a plaintiff’s claim to survive a motion to dismiss under the McDonnell Douglas analysis, he must plausibly allege that he “(1) is a member of a protected class, . . . (2) suffered an adverse . . . action, and (3) has at least minimal support for the proposition that the [housing provider] was motivated by discriminatory intent.” While plaintiff did allege, “in a conclusory fashion” that the KPM defendants intervened against other tenants regarding non-race related violations of their leases or of the law, the Court held that “there is no factual basis to plausibly involve infer that the KPM defendants’ conduct with regard to Francis was motivated by racial animus.”

CMM Prevails in Arbitration for Long Island Custom Home Builder

Posted: July 23rd, 2021

Tags: construction, litigation

Ask someone to picture lawyers resolving a dispute, and they likely envision a wood-paneled courtroom with a judge banging a gavel, a shocked jury, and a lot of drama. Or perhaps they imagine a bright, sleek conference room with a shiny long table and people in Armani suits arguing passionately for their respective clients. But no one really thinks of arbitration… and many don’t know what it is.

Arbitration is a form of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) and a way to resolve disputes outside the courtroom. During arbitration, an impartial third party known as an arbitrator hears evidence and arguments in a dispute between parties, then makes a decision. The decision results in a binding “arbitration award” to the winner. (Other forms of ADR, such as mediation, are non-binding, but nevertheless effective at resolving disputes without resorting to litigation.) Sometimes, ADR is the best choice for a client when there is an opportunity to move beyond an impasse and resolve matters more quickly than in the courtroom or board room. Other times, it may be mandated by an agreement between the parties.

CMM recently prevailed in an arbitration proceeding on behalf of our client, a Long Island custom home construction management company. Our client had an agreement to provide construction management services for a significant $2 million renovation at a residence in Suffolk County. The corporate homeowner failed to pay our client the full construction management fee, claiming that they were entitled to offsets due to alleged damages and defective work/supervision.

While conflict resolution is never easy, CMM’s Jeffrey Basso prevailed after a four-day arbitration hearing and multiple witnesses spanning several months of investigation and discovery along with submission of post-hearing briefs. With careful preparation in advance of the hearing, Basso refuted the allegations made by the corporate homeowners by strategically presenting credible and convincing witnesses during the hearing that substantiated the work performed by our client. The arbitrator granted our client a significant arbitration award, as well as attorneys’ fees and the dismissal of all counterclaims. CMM has a proven track record of success with ADR, including arbitration, and views ADR as a critical tool to resolve matters reasonably. Please contact us to discuss the best avenues available to resolve your business dispute.

Webinar: Yermash To Talk Cannabis Law on HIA-LI Manufacturing Committee Panel

Posted: July 23rd, 2021

Event Date: July 28th, 2021

Join CMM Partner Arthur Yermash, Chair of our Cannabis Law practice, for the HIA-LI Manufacturing & International Trade Committee webinar as he discusses the legal considerations of starting a cannabis business in New York. Panelists include Martin Chalif, Owner of Paperless Solutions Company of Long Island and Joel Halvorson, Vice President of Quintel Management Consulting in Denver, Colorado. Attendees will have the opportunity for a Q&A session at the end.

At this online event you will learn the following:

General information about cannabis; growers, processer, sellers,
What other states have been experiencing that New York can learn from,
Technology considerations in cannabis industry,
Compliance considerations in cannabis industry,
Legal considerations in cannabis industry,
Regulations and more.

WHEN: Wednesday, July 28, 2021

TIME: 8:30 AM – 10:00 AM

COST: Free

Communication in Negotiation: Cialdini’s Six Principles of Persuasion

Posted: July 15th, 2021

By: Joe Campolo, Esq. email

“Communication is key in negotiation” and “negotiation is an exercise in communication” – phrases you’ve probably heard so many times that they’ve become meaningless. What if instead, we said that negotiation is about communication and persuasion. That’s what the research of Dr. Robert Cialdini, an expert in the field of influence and persuasion through evidence-based research, has revealed. According to Cialdini, negotiation is about persuasion and how one can present their ideas to others through effective communication in a way that moves them. By using Cialdini’s six principles of persuasion, you can use scientific and psychological-based claims to improve success in your own negotiations – and improve your communication skills while doing so. Here, a closer look:

Reciprocity

This principle states that people tend to give back to others what has been given to them – encouraging giving when you receive and making clear that you should be the first to “give.” Cialdini points out that what you’re giving should be personalized and unexpected.

For example, if you’re negotiating with a client around the holiday season, you could send them a holiday gift as a way to show that they can trust you. This can keep the relationship going in a meaningful way, especially if you send a personalized card. Research shows that client and customers are more likely to be touched by personal gestures such as a handwritten note or an envelope with a handwritten address rather than pre-typed label. Since you sent the gift first, the client now has the option to send one back (or not), but regardless, they will not forget the gesture you made.

Scarcity

People want what they can’t have – they crave exclusivity. In negotiations, it’s important to tell people about the benefits of your proposal. However, a more effective way of communicating is to highlight what makes your offer unique and what your counterpart stands to lose if they fail to consider it.

Say you’re negotiating the sale of a property or building. As the seller, you could consider mentioning to the potential buyer that there are others interested in buying as well so there isn’t that much time available to think about the offer. (Of course, if you use the scarcity principle to create a sense of urgency, you have to consider the ethics and be careful not to make fake claims that could risk your reputation.)

Authority

People follow the lead of those they perceive to be credible and knowledgeable – so it’s critical to communicate your expertise before you even start a negotiation.

An “expert introduction” is one way to establish credibility before a negotiation even begins. For example, if you are a client who calls an insurance company seeking to speak with an agent, the receptionist may transfer you to “Auto Agent David,” or to “Auto Agent David, who has 20+ years of experience in the auto industry and was recently recognized by an industry publication for his work.” Through this small extra detail, Auto Agent David’s authority just increased in your eyes.

Commitment & Consistency

People do not like to make large commitments. Therefore, it’s important to look for and ask for small initial commitments that can be made easily as a gateway to something bigger. For example, in a negotiation, if you are able to get your counterpart to agree to something smaller once, they are more likely to agree to something bigger later. Say you’re negotiating with a potential sponsor of your company event and want them to contribute a certain amount of time or money, you might want to start by asking for something minimal. Then, after they agree, you can ask them for more, or if you’re satisfied, the next time you host the event, you can ask the company to donate more than they did the first time.

Liking

People generally say yes to those that they like or feel more connected to. Furthermore, people like those who are similar to them, pay them compliments, and cooperate with them. When you are in a negotiation, sometimes a simple action like giving your counterpart a compliment and exchanging some personal information can create a more positive and successful interaction. Before starting a negotiation, try identifying a similarity that you and your counterpart share. This will set the stage for an agreeable outcome for both parties.

Consensus

The final principle is consensus – people look to the actions of others and try to mimic them. People like to be in the majority and feel safe there. That’s why a sign asking people to recycle might help; however, a sign adding that a certain percentage of the population recycles could be even more effective. By encouraging action (or inaction) from people by pointing out what others are doing, people will generally follow the behaviors of others to determine their own. This is often referred to as “FOMO” or “fear of missing out” where people want to feel included and be a part of a pack.

And there you have it: Cialdini’s six principles of persuasion can help sway a negotiation in your favor when properly executed (ethically, of course). You’re probably already employing some of these principles in your daily life. For instance, giving compliments might seem effortless and a part of your personality, but that means you’ve already mastered the principle of “liking.” Likewise, you might already gear up to ask people for bigger commitments by asking for little ones first – that means you’ve been putting the principle of “commitment & consistency” into effect. The next time you find yourself facing an unswayable friend or foe, try one, two, three (or all) of Cialdini’s principles out.

What Employers Need to Know about HERO Act Obligations

Posted: July 15th, 2021

By: Arthur Yermash, Esq. email

Tags: coronavirus, labor & employment

As the pandemic continues on, New Yorkers may not be surprised to learn that a new law has been passed addressing safety in the workplace in connection with COVID-19 as well as future airborne infectious disease outbreaks.

Governor Cuomo officially signed the New York Health and Essential Rights Act (HERO) into law on May 5, 2021. The legislation amends the New York Labor Law by adding two new sections governing (1) the development and adoption of a workplace prevention policy for airborne infectious diseases, and (2) the creation of workplace safety committees.

What You Need to Know about Airborne Disease Prevention Plans

The NY Hero Act requires the New York State Department of Labor (NYSDOL) to develop minimum standards for private sector employers to follow to help prevent the spread of airborne infectious diseases, such as COVID-19, in the workplace. These standards may differ among industries but will include elements familiar to employers who have already reopened: face coverings, employee health screenings, cleaning protocols, social distancing, and the like. The DOL has until June 4, 2021 to issue the standards. Employers do not have to adopt the NYSDOL’s industry-specific prevention plan models, but if they choose to create their own, the plans must meet or exceed the NYSDOL minimum requirements and be created with employee participation (for non-unionized workers). Most employers will also be required to provide notice of their prevention plan by June 4, as well as post it in a prominent location in the workplace, provide it to all employees upon reopening after a period of closure due to airborne infectious disease, provide it upon hire, and distribute it in the employee’s primary language if other than English (provided there is a model policy developed in that specific language).

Although Governor Cuomo signed the current version of the Act, he also stated that he had been in talks with legislators to amend the law to ease the burden on employers, giving them time to immediately cure violations, limiting litigation to situations in which employers act in bad faith, and to provide more time for the DOL and employers to enact the new standards. Violations of the law could result in monetary penalties.

What You Need to Know about Workplace Safety Committees

Effective November 1, 2021 for private sector employers with 10 or more employees[1] or an annual payroll over $800,000 and a workers compensation experience modification of more than 1.2, another provision of the HERO Act provides protections for employees who would like to form a workplace safety committee or report a health and safety plan violation. The law sets standards and requirements for committees like this and includes an anti-retaliation provision for employees. This will allow employees to engage in committee activities without fear of retaliation. Additionally, if an employer fails to comply with NYSDOL standards, employees may bring a claim against their employer for failing to follow NYS Labor Law.

What Do Employers Need to Do Now?

While the DOL model prevention plans are not yet available, employers should begin reviewing their policies and preparing for the upcoming compliance deadlines on June 4 and November 1. For guidance on the NY Hero Act minimum standards and adopting your own prevention plan, please contact us.

On June 11, Governor Cuomo signed legislation amending the New York State HERO Act in three areas:

Prevention Plans:

The amendments extend the deadline for the NYSDOL to publish its model plans to July 5, 2021 instead of the previous deadline of June 4. The updates to the Act also include set deadlines – employers will have 30 days after the DOL publishes the model standards to adopt their own disease prevention plans and 60 days to let employees know about any updated safety protocols.

Workplace Safety Committees:

The HERO Act provided protections for employees of certain private sector employers who wanted to form workplace safety committees. While the original HERO Act did not specify restrictions for workplace safety committees, the updates to the Act allow employers to limit such committees to one per worksite. The Amendments also limit committee meetings during working hours to two hours and committee training to four hours.

Private Causes of Action:

Governor Cuomo has also upheld his statement from our earlier article below in which he proposed to amend the Act to ease the burden on employers. The updates to the Act require employees to provide employers with 30 days’ notice before filing lawsuits and allow the employer time to correct the violation. This means that unless an employer demonstrates an “unwillingness to cure a violation in bad faith,” employees will not be able to bring suit if the employer corrects a violation in time. Lastly, the Amendments remove the Act’s ability to allow for recovery of liquidated damages in a private cause of action.

On July 6, 2021, the New York State Department of Labor, in consultation with the New York State Department of Health, published an Airborne Infectious Disease Exposure Prevention Standard and a Model Airborne Infectious Disease Exposure Prevention Plan.

Also published were industry-specific templates for agriculture, construction, delivery services, domestic workers, emergency response, food services, manufacturing and industry, personal services, private education, private transportation, and retail.

What Now?

Employers now have 30 days to adopt a written exposure plan, either following the NYSDOL’s model plan or creating their own following NYSDOL standards. The plan must be communicated to employees and posted in a visible location.

It’s important to note that while an exposure prevention plan is required to be adopted and posted, it is not required to be in effect until the New York State Commissioner of Health designates an airborne infectious disease.

[1] The Act defines employees to include individuals such as part-time workers, independent contractors, domestic workers, home health and personal care workers, and seasonal workers.

Sea Cliff Village Library Names CMM’s David Green as Library Trustee

Posted: July 14th, 2021

Campolo, Middleton & McCormick, LLP – a premier law firm with offices across Long Island – is pleased to announce that Senior Associate David Green has been appointed as a Trustee of the Sea Cliff Village Library. In his new role as a Trustee, Green will serve the Sea Cliff Village community by helping the library enhance the quality of life for village residents by providing informational, recreational, technological, and cultural resources for all.

Green will serve a five-year term and work closely with the Board and the Friends of the Library to approve library resolutions, budgets, discuss presentations and examine subcommittee reports. Part of Green’s responsibilities as a Trustee and leader in the community will be to uphold the library’s vision in becoming a gathering place in the Village for local professionals by providing resources and connecting Sea Cliff residents in all areas of business.

Green is no stranger to leadership; his work as a Senior Associate at CMM has earned him a spot on CMM’s own leadership team, where he plays a critical role in mentoring and training new attorneys and staff. He also provides CLE training on litigation topics and client relations. As a member of the firm’s litigation team, Green works with clients involved in business disputes, personal injury matters, and intellectual property matters. He also counsels clients on complex discovery, trials, appeals, securing settlements, and alternative dispute resolution.

“The Sea Cliff Village Library’s dedication to the community and its mission of offering a welcoming space for all village residents really resonates with me,” Green said. “I’m excited to roll up my sleeves and get to work in assisting the library to respond to the needs of the village through programming and outreach as a member of the Board of Trustees.”

Campolo Participates in Ribbon Cutting for America’s VetDogs Training Facility

Posted: July 7th, 2021

CMM Managing Partner Joe Campolo was honored to attend America’s VetDogs ribbon cutting ceremony yesterday as they unveiled their newly renovated Training Center in Smithtown. As a member of their board, Campolo spoke during the ceremony about the incredible leadership of VetDogs and Guide Dog Foundation and showed appreciation for all who helped achieve this amazing accomplishment. The training facility will assist in placing more guide and service dogs with veterans and first responders with disabilities.

Campolo attended alongside veterans and elected officials such as New York State Senator Mario Materra, New York State Senator Alexis Weik, New York Assemblyman Michael Fitzpatrick, Civilian Aide to the Secretary of the Army Steven Castleton, Senior Veterans Services Officer for Suffolk County Retired U.S. Air Force and Air National Guard Master Sgt. Melissa Pandolf, Smithtown Town Supervisor Ed Wehrheim, and America’s VetDogs Board Chair Don Dea.

CMM’s Municipal Liability Team Saves Smithtown Millions in Potential Exposure

Posted: July 1st, 2021

Tags: municipal

CMM’s latest courtroom success has helped the Town of Smithtown avoid millions of dollars in potential exposure in a lawsuit stemming from a tragic accident.

In 2016, the plaintiff was a passenger in a car driven by a drunk driver that ran off the road after approaching a curve on Sunken Meadow Road in the hamlet of Kings Park, Town of Smithtown at 3:00 a.m. The plaintiff suffered severe life-changing injuries as a result. He filed suit against the drunk driver, as well as the Town of Smithtown and its Highway Department. The injured plaintiff alleged that the Town defendants were negligent in maintaining, constructing, designing, and operating the road and failed to warn motorists of the dangerous condition of accumulation of sand and clogged storm drains that allegedly resulted in the driver of the car losing control of his vehicle. Furthermore, the plaintiff alleged that the Town failed to correct the condition.

Following discovery, CMM’s Municipal Liability team, including Richard DeMaio and Scott Middleton, moved for summary judgment (essentially, a request that the Court dismiss the case because there are no facts at issue). DeMaio and Middleton argued that discovery had made it clear that while the accident was a tragedy, the Town defendants bore no liability. There had been no complaints about the road or excess sand at the site of the accident, nor did the Town receive prior written notice of an allegedly defective condition at the location or any accidents occurring there.

Thanks to CMM’s work, the Court granted the motion and dismissed the Complaint in its entirety “with prejudice” (permanently) against the Town defendants. As a result, the Town of Smithtown avoided millions of dollars in potential exposure. Visit our Municipal Liability page to learn more about our successful work for municipalities.