Source: https://www.alblawfirm.com/case-studies/creative-lawyering-results/
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 19:09:50+00:00

Document:
We practice one type of law, real estate law and not every facet of real estate law. We only take on projects in which we believe we can furnish the very best representation in the field.
We practice in one state and focus our work on one city and its immediate suburbs, giving us the home field advantage in the courts, the boardrooms and the governmental agencies.
We recruit attorneys who are recognized as the very best in their field in one facet of real estate law.
We model our first year lawyer recruiting on baseball’s farm system where we hire externs, clerks and students who are still in law school. We nurture and build their skills and from these, we hire only the best candidates for full time employment.
We practice aggressive, creative, out-of-the-box lawyering. Led by a cadre of partners recognized in their sub-specialties as number one in the state, we brainstorm new ways to solve the unsolvable, achieve the incredible, and accomplish the impossible.
We never rest on our laurels and know that we are only as good as our last case, deal, or negotiation.
We have invented new ways to practice law and new theories to solve our clients’ problems. Our successes have resulted in producing new laws and new precedents, creating new leases to become the industry standards, devising new faster, less expensive procedures to obtain foreclosures and evictions, using “Perry Mason” moments to win trials, creating out-of- the-box ways to collect on judgments, and creating new theories of law to obtain justice for our clients.
We require of our staff, from the top to the bottom, a level of responsiveness to clients’ interests, concerns, and communications unrivaled not only in real estate law, but in the entire legal industry.
We remain ever vigilant for the clients’ bottom line, looking for less expensive but more effective ways of achieving their goals.
We never stop searching for new things to add to this recipe to make our service for our clients and their interests ever better.
Client had erected a structure at the back of their business on the property of a neighbor. At trial, Adam Leitman Bailey PC was able to establish through the use of “ancient documents” and testimony establishing a course of conduct that our client was entitled an easement by adverse possession for the continued use of the contested area.
The New York Times wrote that “Adam Leitman Bailey fought on…grinding through excruciating detail and obscure Perry Mason moments.
In Lorne v. 50 Madison, making new law, the Appellate Division found condominium boards not liable for repairing newly constructed building and that the obligation to repair remains with Sponsor.
In East 51st Street Crane Collapse, 106 A.D.3d 473 (1st Dept. 2013) Established that settlements of wrongful death action due to crane collapse should be unsealed for review by the public and other parties adversely affected by the collapse.
B & C Realty, Co. v. 129 Emmut LLC, 106 A.D.3d 653 (1st Dept. 2013) Successfully defended owner of a building with potential zoning violations against purchaser who failed to close and lost a two million dollar down payment with finding that purchaser failed to demonstrate reasonable reliance necessary to sustain claims of fraudulent inducement, fraud and promissory estoppel.
Board of Managers of 184 Thompson Street Condominium v. 184 Thompson Street Owner LLC, 106 A.D.3a 542 (1st Dept. 2013) Clarified the “total price” calculation in determining what a sponsor must contribute to a condominium’s reserve fund.
Stalker v. Steward Tenants Corp. , 93 A.D.3d 550 (1st Dept. 2012) In a case of first impression, successfully argued to appellate court that sellers of a cooperative apartment could sue cooperative under the New York State Human Rights Law and the Federal Fair Housing Act for damages when cooperative refused to approve a sale of the unit to elderly buyers.
Fort Washington Holdings, LLC v. Abbott, 36 Misc. 3d (App. T. 1st Dept. 2013) In a succession case, reversed trial court decision nullifying a jury’s verdict which held that for a non-traditional family member to succeed, claimed successor must prove both an emotional commitment interdependence and a financial commitment interdependence appellate term found that succession was not established.
Hartman v. Goldman, 84 A.D. 3a 374 (2d Dept. 2011) In a case of first impression involving the 2008 amendment to Real Property Actions & Proceedings §543, successfully defended an adverse possession claim on the basis that de minimus non-structural encroachments are permissive and non-adverse.
221-06 Merrick Blvd Associations, LLC v. Crescent Electric Acquisitions Corp., 79 A.D. 3d 896 (2d Dept. 2010) Reaffirmed that renewal lease option is ineffective if not given in a timely manner and found that equity should not intervene to excuse tenant’s tardiness in exercising option.
Lorne v. 50 Madison Ave, LLC, 65 A.D.3d 879 (1st Dept. 2010) Successfully represented Board of Directors against challenge by shareholder of a unit who claimed that the Board breached its fiduciary duty to her by not permitting certain sponsor obligated repair work to be performed by the shareholder absent to shareholder executing an alteration agreement. Also reaffirmed that board member cannot be sued in individual capacity about the member committing an independent tort against the shareholder.
Sykes v. RFD Third Avenue 1. Associates, LLC, 67 A.D.3d 162 (2010) Established that a course of action for negligent misrepresentation asserted against a mechanical engineering firm for rendering statements in an offering plan regarding the disputes of the heating and condition systems which proved to be untrue, did not lie because the owner was not a known party when the firm made the representation.
Nehmadi v. Davis 63 A.D. 3d 115 (2nd Dept. 2009) Reaffirmed that a time of the essence letter must detail the consequences of a failing to appear at the closing and hold that specific performance cause of action remains viable when a time of the essence letter is deficient.
Chan v. Chin 62 A.D. 3d 471 (1st Dept. 2009) Successfully represented owners from challenge by perspective purchaser to obtain valuable commercial property who several documents did not satisfy statue of frauds. Because documents never established a purchase price, there was no meeting of the minds.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §543
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.