Source: https://www.boydlawgroup.com/whats-new/
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 18:11:27+00:00

Document:
At BRPC, we know that the law is not static; it is an ever changing landscape that requires constant vigilance. We recognize the importance of following statutory amendments and staying up to date on state and federal case law. It truly can mean the difference between a win and a loss. We like to win.
Gary S. Ehrlich and Matthew T. Clark of Boyd Richards successfully appealed a decision of a trial court’s refusal to grant a mixed-used condominium a license fee under RPAPL § 881 because a neighboring building was granted a license to install protective work on the condominium’s property during a construction project. The trial court originally granted the adjacent building, a major cultural and philanthropic institution, was not required to pay a license fee although installation of protective work effectively closed the pocket park that serves as the condominium’s main entrance. The New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division for the First Department reversed, unanimously held holding the trial court had abused its discretion by failing to consider the parties’ prior course of dealing, condominium residents’ loss of use and enjoyment of parts of the building, and diminution on sale and rental values of condominium units when it declined to award a reasonable license fee.
Bryan Mazzola and André Haynes obtained dismissal of the complaint on behalf of a co-operative corporation and its president, in a lawsuit brought against them by two shareholders who owned a professional unit in the coop. Plaintiffs alleged, among other things, that the apartment was smaller than another similar professional apartment but was issued the same number of shares after the apartment was reduced in size over thirty years ago, that illegal alterations were performed by the board in the apartment, and that the apartment’s doorway is not ADA compliant. plaintiffs’ lawsuit sought to compel the board to reduce the number of shares allocated to the apartment, and have the violations corrected or their apartment restored to its condition before the alteration and to have the doorway made ADA compliant. In dismissing the complaint, the court held that, among other things, the business judgment rule protected the board’s decision not reduce the number of shares allocated to the apartment.
Jennifer Stewart and André Haynes successfully defended summary judgment on behalf of a general contractor who signed two estoppel certificates to the plaintiff (the entity assigned two invoices from the defendant’s subcontractor), which both state that defendant owes a sum certain for the work performed and has no claims of any nature against those amounts. In denying summary judgment, the court held that plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case, because the defendant alleged that the subcontractor failed to adequately perform his work and that defendant was entitled to a write-off as a result.
Patricia I Murray obtained a judgment in favor of the defendant/owner of a vehicle that was stolen and subsequently involved in an accident resulting in serious injury, (broken hip and femur/compartment syndrome) to a passenger. The injured party alleged that the owner negligently left his keys in the vehicle , allowing it to be stolen. Pat successfully convinced the Court that the plaintiff’s theory was based entirely on inadmissible speculation, and that the dangerous instrumentality doctrine could not be applied in this matter so as to impose liability on the owner, extricating her client from the case and winning summary judgment at a relatively early stage of the litigation.
Jennifer L. Stewart and Gary S. Ehrlich in the Boyd Richards’ New York office successfully established a Coop’s right to exclusive use and possession of its roof, and obtained injunctive relief barring a shareholder from continuing to climb out his window onto the roof and use it as a terrace. The shareholder claimed to have used the roof in this manner for 25 years, asserting claims that he had obtained that right either by waiver or by adverse possession. On the Coop’s motion, New York Supreme Court rejected those claims and entered summary judgment and an injunction in favor of the Coop, which the First Department affirmed on appeal.
Kyle T. Berglin obtained partial summary judgment on behalf of Delaire Country Club, Inc. in a lawsuit that sought to overturn a member’s one-year disciplinary suspension as contrary to Florida law. The Plaintiff was a disgruntled Club member who attacked the Club, its Board of Governors, management, and its individual members in a disparaging public web campaign. The Club initiated internal disciplinary proceedings against the member and suspended him for a period of one-year, which resulted in the Plaintiff filing suit to challenge his suspension. Mr. Berglin successfully argued that a private country club has the sole and exclusive authority to suspend or discipline its members for actions that it deems misconduct detrimental to the Club. In granting the Club’s motion, the Court concluded that it was not permitted under Florida law to determine the merits or reasonableness of the Club’s disciplinary charges or suspension decisions, and effectively validated the core of the Club’s defense to Plaintiff’s lawsuit. The ruling effectively eliminated any chance the Plaintiff had of obtaining meaningful relief in this lawsuit. Following the resolution of the remaining, limited issue in this lawsuit, Mr. Berglin will seek an award of attorneys’ fees and costs on behalf of the Club as prevailing party.
Attorneys Bryan J. Mazzola and Jacqueline L. Aiello recently prevailed on a motion to dismiss the complaint and compel arbitration in an employment dispute filed in the Southern District of New York. In this case, a former doorman alleged that he was subject to discrimination and retaliation based on his national origin and commenced his action in Federal Court despite being a member of the Local 32BJ union and subject to a collective bargaining agreement which requires arbitration of, among other things, discrimination claims under Title VII, the New York State Human Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights Code. In granting the motion to compel arbitration and dismissing the complaint, the Court found that the Firm successfully demonstrated that: (a) the parties agreed to arbitrate; (b) that the employee’s claims were within the scope of the arbitration agreement; and (c) that Congress intended for such discrimination and retaliation claims to be arbitrated.
Frank Colonnelli and Craig Shankman represented various attorneys and their law firms, who were sued for legal malpractice in a highly contested matter for millions of dollars in connection with the bankruptcy of a retail clothing store. After a decade of litigation, Mr. Colonnelli and Mr. Shankman were successful in not only dismissing all claims with prejudice in favor of the defense, but their clients were also awarded a Final Judgment in excess of $250,000 to recover their fees and costs against the Plaintiffs and their counsel.
Bryan Mazzola and Russell Edwards represented two individual employees of a Cooperative in New York City, in a case of discrimination before the New York State Division of Human Rights. The Complainant accused the two employees of housing discrimination based on his race/ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation and disability. After several months of investigation, the New York State Division of Human Rights issued a “No Probable Cause” determination with respect to the Complainant’s claims. Mr. Mazzola and Mr. Edwards were successfully able to show that the Complainant demonstrated consistent nuisance-like and hazardous behavior throughout the time that he lived as a tenant at the Coop, and that the individual employees never engaged in any acts of discrimination toward the Complainant.
Bryan Mazzola and Russell Edwards represented the professional managing agent of a Cooperative in lower Manhattan before the National Labor Relations Board. A former employee filed a charge against the managing agent and alleged that after he submitted a grievance to his union, the managing agent terminated his employment. Ultimately, Mr. Mazzola and Mr. Edwards successfully demonstrated that there were legitimate reasons for the former employee’s termination, which eliminated his claim of retaliation for engaging in a protected concerted activity, and led to the National Labor Relations Board’s dismissal of his charge.
Bryan Mazzola and Brett Carrick recently obtained a unanimous ruling from the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, affirming the lower court’s decision which dismissed an Article 78 proceeding filed by a cooperative shareholder and her husband. The Appellate Division found that the dismissal of a petition which sought to compel the Coop’s board to issue a key to the building from a garage entrance, even though the shareholder and her husband, did not have a car or utilize the garage. In the decision, the Appellate Division found that the Court properly dismissed the petition because the Coop’s decision was in accordance with the Coop’s long-standing policy of withholding garage key from shareholders who do not utilize the garage and the Coop’s determination was protected by the business judgment rule.
Frank Colonnelli and Robert Menje represented a condominium association, and its former president, who were sued in a four-count Complaint. Plaintiff, a unit owner, sought to invalidate an amendment to the declaration of condominium, challenge the constitutionality of Section 718.110(14), Florida Statutes, and sought damages against the Defendants for negligence and breach of fiduciary duty. These claims related to the issues of repair and replacement of the Plaintiff’s HVAC system, as well as the remediation of mold and abatement of asbestos in the Plaintiff’s condominium unit. Ultimately, Mr. Colonnelli and Mr. Menje were successful in defeating all of these claims on summary judgment and will now seek an award of attorneys’ fees and costs as the prevailing party.
Bryan Mazzola and Brett Carrick represent a residential cooperative in New York City in a case involving the Coop board’s denial of a shareholders alteration plans, in part, because the proposed alteration would adversely impact the Coop’s electrical system. Mr. Mazzola and Mr. Carrick successfully argued that the Coop’s decision was protected by the business judgment rule. Additionally, it was held that plaintiffs had failed to make out a prima facie case of: (a) a breach of warranty of habitability because the plaintiffs did not reside in the apartment, (b) breach of fiduciary duty because there were no specific allegations of wrongdoing against individual board members and the Coop does not owe a fiduciary duty to plaintiffs; and (c) fraudulent misrepresentation/inducement because the Coop did not, among other things, make any misrepresentation to plaintiffs. Mr. Mazzola and Mr. Carrick also obtained the dismissal of multiple causes of action which were duplicative of plaintiff’s breach of contract claim or which were impermissible stand along claims for damages. Finally, the Court dismissed those portions of the complaint which Plaintiff brought derivatively because plaintiffs did not make a demand that the Board take action and as Plaintiff did not establish that there were any other similarly situated shareholders who rights were being enforced as part of the derivative action.
Peter Restani and Maria Dalmanieras of BRPC’s Miami Office successfully defended a multi-state waste and recycling company and its’ employee in a trucking negligence case where Plaintiff requested close to 1 million dollars in damages as a result of two cervical fusions that totaled $255,000.00 in medical expenses. At trial, the defense admitted the negligent operation of the truck so that the case proceeded to the jury on the issues of medical causation and damages only. The Fort Lauderdale jury returned a defense verdict in favor of the Defendants finding that Plaintiff was not injured in the motor vehicle accident and that her alleged injuries were the result of pre-existing conditions not attributable to the accident in question. Plaintiff recovered nothing.
Attorneys Joseph Riopelle and Yvette Lavelle successfully argued and obtained summary judgment in favor of the Insured Master Association which rejected a sub-association’s attempt to require additional assessments from certain members of the Master Association. The successful summary judgment prevented nearly 1700 home owners from paying an additional $600,000 in yearly assessments.
Attorneys Kyle T. Berglin, Esq. and Robert E. Menje, Esq. obtained dismissal with prejudice of a lawsuit asserting claims for breach of contract and fraudulent and negligent misrepresentations against a real estate auction house in connection with a residential property closing. The plaintiff alleged that the auction house failed to disclose that the property was subject to code violations carrying with them fines, and which ultimately resulted in demolition of the property’s single-family home by code enforcement shortly after the transaction closed and plaintiff had acquired title to the property. The firm’s lawyers pursued an aggressive litigation strategy in which they moved for both summary judgment and sanctions against the plaintiff and her counsel at an early stage of the litigation, arguing that the auction house owed plaintiff no contractual duties and that documents provided at or shortly before the closing had sufficiently disclosed the violations at issue and allocated the risks of loss due to the code violations solely to the plaintiff. While these motions were pending, Mr. Berglin successfully negotiated a zero-dollar voluntary dismissal with prejudice of all claims asserted by the plaintiff against the firm’s client.
Attorneys William E. Peters and Alejandro F. Garcia obtained a dismissal of a lawsuit on the morning of trial after the Court granted the property insurer’s motion to exclude a majority of the opposing expert’s causation and damages opinions. The plaintiff’s property sustained minor damages to the base kitchen cabinet after a plumbing leak that did not exceed the policy’s deductible. Plaintiff’s expert opined that the leak caused a separation between the back and base panels in the interior of the kitchen cabinet which allowed water to damage the drywall behind the cabinet, that the leak damaged the tile flooring and that it would cost in excess of $71,000 to repair the damages caused by the loss. The expert admitted during his deposition that all of these opinions were speculative and not based on any known facts and the Court excluded the opinions accordingly. The plaintiff dismissed the case minutes before jury selection began.
The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal recently issued a unanimous ruling affirming the summary judgment entered in favor of our Defendant law firm clients. The Plaintiffs, former clients of the law firm, brought suit alleging legal malpractice, breach of contract, and breach of fiduciary duty, among other claims, upon allegations that the law firm was negligent in its representation of the Plaintiffs, causing them to lose pay on death benefits of over $30 million dollars. The Plaintiffs argued that the law firm, while seeking to recover sums allegedly due under a death benefit policy, failed to argue the delayed discovery doctrine with respect to Plaintiffs’ fraud claims, which were dismissed on statute of limitations grounds. Plaintiffs maintained that if the law firm had argued the delayed discovery doctrine, the argument would have saved their fraud claims from dismissal.
Our firm’s lawyers successfully established that the delayed discovery doctrine was in fact raised by the law firm, and even if it was not raised, the delayed discovery argument would have been futile as all of the Plaintiffs’ claims were barred by the statute of limitations as a matter of laws as Plaintiffs were charged with notice of any fraud at the time they entered into the death benefit policy, the terms of which may have conflicted with the verbal representations of the issuer. It was at the time the policy was executed that the statute of limitations began to run and not when the Plaintiffs became aware of the loss of their pay on death benefits years later. As the suit to recover benefits was filed more than four years after execution of the policy, Plaintiffs’ claims for fraud were barred as any fraud should have been known at the time of execution. Thus, as the statute of limitations expired before filing suit and prior to the law firm’s retention, the firm could not have committed legal malpractice as Plaintiffs had no valid cause of action to begin with. The trial court therefore granted the firm’s motion for summary judgment and ruled that Plaintiffs’ claim failed as a matter of law. On appeal, the Fourth District agreed with the trial court’s conclusions and unanimously affirmed the trial court’s ruling. W. Todd Boyd, Esq. and Craig J. Shankman, Esq. represented the Defendant law firm in this action.
Attorneys Bryan J. Mazzola and Jacqueline L. Aiello obtained summary judgment in favor of a Condo’s former board president dismissing a complaint alleging a breach of fiduciary duty which was commenced by unit owners relating to a prior litigation. Specifically, at the time the defendant was the Condo’s Board president, the Board had commenced suit against the unit owners for installing an HVAC system without the Board’s approval. The Condo prevailed in that action and the unit owners later commenced suit against the Board president, claiming that he improperly and without authorization caused the first suit to be filed against them. In dismissing the case and awarding summary judgment, the Court found that the Firm demonstrated that the claim was time barred and that the unit owners could not demonstrate they suffered damages given the Court’s prior ruling that the unit owners improperly installed their HVAC system without Board approval.
Attorneys Bryan J. Mazzola and Jacqueline L. Aiello won an appeal in New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, from an order improperly denying summary judgment to the defendants despite there being no factual disputes to be determined at trial. Unit owners of an HOA commenced suit against the HOA and its individual board members for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty and punitive damages based on the HOA’s decision to fine the unit owners for failing to remediate an overgrowth of their bamboo onto the HOA’s common areas and their neighbors’ properties. Despite the HOA’s authority to take this action per its governing documents, the unit owners argued that the HOA should have remediated the bamboo and charged the unit owners back for the costs and that the defendants singled them out by refusing to take this course of action. The Second Department reversed the motion court and dismissed the complaint in its entirety, holding that: the HOA acted within the scope of its authority under the governing documents in fining the unit owners for failing to remediate the bamboo and that its decision was protected by the business judgment rule; the defendant did not single out the unit owners by taking this course of action; and that there was no basis for individual liability or punitive damages.
Attorneys Bryan J. Mazzola and Jacqueline L. Aiello successfully defeated a motion for a preliminary injunction by a corporation claiming to own a unit within an HOA and seeking to gain access to the unit. The Firm demonstrated that the plaintiff-corporation did not receive good title to the unit as it purchased the unit from an individual who was not the record owner, that the HOA voted to void the unit’s transfer to the plaintiff based on the significant common charge arrears based on its authority within the governing documents and that a preliminary injunction granting plaintiff access to the unit would drastically change the status quo and further complicate the impending foreclosure on the unit.
Attorneys Bryan J. Mazzola and Jacqueline L. Aiello obtained a dismissal of a discrimination complaint brought by a former employee of a condominium apartment building who contended he had been discriminated against and terminated due to his marital status, age and ethnicity. In administrative proceedings before the New York State Division of Human Rights, the Firm demonstrated, on behalf of the employer, that the discipline and subsequent termination were attributable to the employee’s poor work performance, including his continued breaches of the Condo’s security protocols, not his membership in a protected class. The Firm also demonstrated that the employee was barred from challenging his termination as an arbitrator already determined that it was proper. The agency dismissed the complaint finding no causal nexus between the discipline/termination and the employee’s marital status, age or national origin, with a finding of “No Probable Cause”.
Attorneys Bryan J. Mazzola and Jacqueline L. Aiello won dismissal of a discrimination complaint brought by a former employee of a condominium apartment building who contended he had been discriminated against and terminated due to his age and ethnicity. In administrative proceedings before the New York State Division of Human Rights, the Firm demonstrated, on behalf of the employer, that the discipline and subsequent termination were attributable to the employee’s poor work performance, including his continued breaches of the Condo’s security protocols, not his membership in a protected class. Moreover, the Firm demonstrated that the employee was barred from challenging his termination as an arbitrator already determined that it was proper. The agency dismissed the complaint finding no causal nexus between the discipline/termination and the employee’s age or national origin, with a finding of “No Probable Cause”.
We are proud to announce that Jennifer L. Stewart and Jacqueline L. Aiello have been given the distinct honor of being selected and listed in the 2017 Super Lawyers – New York Metro – Rising Stars list, a list limited to no more than 2.5% of the attorneys in the state.
Super Lawyers, a Thomson Reuters business, is a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The annual selections are made using a patented multi-phase process that includes a statewide survey of lawyers, an independent research evaluation of candidates and peer reviews by practice area. The result is a credible, comprehensive and diverse listing of exceptional attorneys that the Firm is proud to have two of its own exceptional attorneys included in.
New York attorneys Gary S. Ehrlich and Jennifer L. Stewart established a cooperative apartment corporation’s right to exclusive use and possession of a setback roof, prevailing over a shareholder claiming that, since he could climb out his window and access it, and had been doing so for years, he had the right to use the setback roof as though it were a terrace. The shareholder had placed outdoor furniture, planters and other decorations on the roof and hosted parties there, despite numerous cease and desist notices from the cooperative. The court’s order on summary judgment, however, provided that the cooperative has right, title and interest to the setback portion of the roof and the shareholder does not have a right to occupy, use or enjoy the roof, and enjoining the shareholder and his guest from occupying or using the roof.
New York attorneys Bryan J. Mazzola and Jennifer L. Stewart obtained a favorable decision from a referee after a three-day fixed issue hearing concerning whether a particular roof repair project was structural or non-structural. This issue determined whether costs were the responsibility of the Condo, if structural, or the individual unit owners, if non-structural. This was a classic “battle of the experts” in which the Firm’s client’s selected expert clearly prevailed.
New York attorneys Jennifer L. Stewart and Brett Carrick won summary judgment for a Coop, its managing agent, and several board members in a derivative suit concerning Coop governance. Two dissident board members wished to terminate and replace the Coop’s managing agent and general counsel. They presented last-minute board resolutions to that effect, claimed that other board members with relationships to the managing agent were disqualified from voting, then slipped letters under shareholders’ doors overnight introducing a new managing agent. When the rest of the Board explained that the resolutions had failed 2-3 and there would be no change in management, the two dissidents sued. On summary judgment, the Firm demonstrated to the Court that the resolutions had not passed, all board members were entitled to vote, and that voting down the resolutions was plainly in the best interest of the Coop. Thus, the Court granted summary judgment and dismissed the complaint.
New York attorneys Gary S. Ehrlich and Jennifer L. Stewart negotiated a favorable settlement for a Coop that had been engaged in a 30-year dispute with its Sponsor over voting rights and associated governance issues. The Sponsor, who owned approximately half of the units in the Coop and had been re-acquiring additional units, sought to maintain control of the Board by voting for all seats, notwithstanding restrictions on his right to vote in the offering plan and associated regulations. The Sponsor’s ownership of such a high percentage of units had made financing difficult for those seeking to purchase or refinance their apartments. The Firm negotiated a very favorable settlement under which the Sponsor would resume selling units and reduce his ownership, the reacquired units would not have the special rights of Sponsor units, the Sponsor would pay his arrears in full, and he would vote his shares only for a minority of seats on the Board. Thus, in future, a majority of the Board will be chosen by the independent shareholders, and not the Sponsor.
We are proud to announce that John H. Richards and W. Todd Boyd have been named as winners of the prestigious title of 2017 Florida Legal Elite. John H. Richards, partner in the Firm’s Fort Lauderdale office was named as a 2017 Florida Legal Elite winner in the area of Civil Trials. W. Todd Boyd, managing partner of the Firm from the Miami office was named as a 2017 Florida Legal Elite winner in the area of Commercial Litigation.
HB 1237, applying exclusively condominiums, criminalizes certain board member activity and prohibits an association and its management company from retaining shared counsel, among many other changes. Specifically, Section 718.111(a) and (d), Florida Statutes now imposes criminal penalties for the following actions: forgery of a ballot envelope, forgery of voting certificate, theft or embezzlement of funds, destruction of an official record, refusing to allow inspection or copying of an official record within certain timeframes, and soliciting, offering, or accepting a kickback. These actions constitute, at a minimum, second degree misdemeanors and up to first degree felonies.
Section 718.111(3)(b) now prohibits an association from hiring an attorney who also represents its management company. This ban on shared counsel will certainly lead to an increase of insurance premiums as carriers will be obligated to retain separate counsel for each insured entity.
In the same vein, acceptable conflicts of interest of association directors and officers are further limited, first requiring the disclosure of “any activity that may reasonably be construed to be a conflict of interest.” A rebuttable presumption of a conflict of interest is established if either any director, officer, or relative of any director or officer enters into a contract for goods or services with the association; or any director, officer, or relative of any director or officer holds an ownership interest in a corporation, LLC, partnership, LLP, or other business entity that conducts business with the association or proposes to enter into a contract or other transaction with the association. Any conflict must be denoted in the contract.
HB 1237 further mandates that condominium associations create and maintain an internet site. The site must be operational by July 1, 2018. This website requirement applies only to associations of 150 or more units.
Section 718.111(12)(a) now delineates additional requirements for record keeping which includes 1) bids be maintained as accounting records for seven years; 2) authorized representatives of members are now permitted to inspect the association’s records; 3) renters have a right to inspect and copy the association’s bylaws and rules; and 4) electronic records of voting must be maintained for one year.
SB 1520 delineates specific legislative goals for condominium terminations which includes the maintenance of storm water management systems and managing expenses for same, avoidance of covenants that impair productive use of the land, protection of residents from safety hazards stemming from the condominium property, ensuring fair treatment and just compensation for individuals affected, as well as the preservation of homestead property and rights. Optional terminations in particular are further restricted in this bill as the Division of Condominiums must now make a determination as to whether a condominium’s termination plan satisfies certain statutory requirements as denoted in Section 718.117, Florida Statutes. The Division’s decision must be rendered within 45 days after the receipt of the initial termination plan. Notably, an optional termination plan must be approved by at least 80% of the total voting interests and not objected to by more than 5% of the total voting interest. If more than 5% of the total voting interests object, a subsequent termination plan may not be considered for 24 months after the initial rejection. The plan of termination must also identify each person or entity that owns 25% or more of the units, and if the units are owned by an artificial entity, the person or entity that controls 10% or more of the artificial entity must be disclosed. SB 1520 expressly states that Section 718.117 applies to all Florida condominiums in existence on or after July 1, 2007 and that all amendments to the section clarify existing law.
This bill extensively amends Sections 718.116, 719.108, and 720.30851, which govern the preparation and issuance of estoppel letters. Most notably, an association may be bound by an estoppel certificate issued by any board member, authorized agent, or authorized representative of the association including any authorized agent, authorized representative, or employee of a management company authorized to complete this form on behalf of the board or association. In response, associations should implement policies limiting who communicates information on its behalf. An estoppel certificate must now be delivered to the requestor within ten days of the request. An estoppel certificate has an effective period of 30 days if sent by email and 35 days if sent by regular mail.
New York attorneys Bryan J. Mazzola and Jennifer L. Stewart obtained a favorable settlement for landlord in discrimination case brought under the federal Fair Housing Act, as well as state and city human rights laws. In the complaint, professional testers claimed that the building superintendent had refused to show and/or rent them apartments based upon their race.
Joseph Riopelle obtained a dismissal of a Counter-claim filed by resident against an Orange County Condominium resulting in Counter-Claimant settling the primary claim with the Condominium in full with a release of all claims.
Attorneys Gary S. Ehrlich and Jennifer L. Stewart won an appeal in New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, from an order improperly granting summary judgment to the plaintiff on liability despite material issues of fact remaining in dispute concerning whether the plaintiff had waived any objection to the alleged breach of a heating agreement. The appellate court remanded for trial on this issue, which enabled the Firm to negotiate a favorable settlement for its client, a cooperative apartment building, including the termination of the heating agreement that had been recorded against the property approximately forty years previously.
Attorneys Jennifer L. Stewart and Jacqueline L. Aiello successfully defended a condominium and members of its board of managers from a claim by two unit owners arising from alterations performed in their unit. The unit owner plaintiffs sought to compel the condominium and individual board members to arbitrate their various complaints concerning the alteration, including their challenge to liquidated damages imposed pursuant to the alteration agreement for exceeding the alteration schedule provided therein. On BRPC’s motion, the arbitration was dismissed in its entirety because it was not within the scope of the arbitration provisions in the condominium’s governing documents.
Joseph Riopelle obtained a dismissal with prejudice and substantial findings of fact for his client, the Master Association, which was sued by a sub-association for declaratory and injunctive relief related to the interpretation and application of the Master Association’s governing documents. Joseph successfully defended the validity of numerous provisions of the governing documents and solidified the clients ability to continue to charge assessments and other costs to all sub-associations as provided for in the disputed governing documents. The client may now move forward with the order and findings of fact to refute any future challenges to the validity of the governing documents by any other sub-association.
The Firm won dismissal of a discrimination complaint brought by a former employee of a cooperative apartment building who contended he had been discriminated against due to his race and religion. The employee was terminated while the complaint was pending. In administrative proceedings before the New York State Division of Human Rights, the Firm demonstrated, on behalf of the employer, that the discipline and subsequent termination were attributable to the employees poor attendance and work performance, not his membership in a protected class. The agency dismissed the complaint finding no causal nexus between the discipline and the employee’s race, with a finding of “No Probable Cause”. In April 2017, the Eastern District of New York also rejected the discrimination claim when the former employee sought in forma pauperis status to bring his complaint in federal court.
Joseph Riopelle obtained a dismissal of two Florida Bar complaints filed against Joseph’s client related to an on-going divorce proceeding.
Joseph Riopelle successfully defended a Pinellas County condominium against a Charge of Discrimination filed by a resident. The administrative office found that there was no reasonable cause to believe that a discriminatory housing practice occurred related to Petitioner’s allegations. Petitioner did not pursue formal litigation thereafter.
The Firm won dismissal and a “No Probable Cause” finding from the New York State Division of Human Rights with respect to a condominium unit owner’s claim that the Condominium had discriminated against him in connection with efforts to collect delinquent arrears due to the Condominium. The unit owner claimed that the decisions to file a lien against his unit, to commence a collections action for common charge arrears, and to revoke amenities including parking and storage spaces were discriminatory and constituted retaliation against him because he had spoken out concerning a Condominium employee he believed had been improperly terminated. On behalf of the Condominium, the Firm demonstrated that these actions were taken as part of the Condominium’s established process to collect arrears, and not for any discriminatory and retaliatory purpose, and that the other incidental actions the unit owner complained about were similarly unrelated to his race or prior comments. The agency agreed and concluded based upon its investigation that there was “No Probable Cause” to believe that discrimination or retaliation had occurred.
The Firm secured Summary Judgment in favor of the Defendant insurance carrier in a first party property damage case: Plaintiff/insured’s failure to appear for three (3) pre-suit examinations under oath, a condition precedent to bringing suit for Breach of Contract, precluded her recovery under the policy as a matter of law.
The Firm obtained summary judgment for its client on a Brazilian manufacturer’s claim for $3,500,000 in lost profits arising from our client’s alleged failure to timely complete engineering and software work on a fleet management communication system for commercial vehicles.
The Homeowner’s Association does not have mandatory statutory reserves pursuant to Florida Statute Section 720.303(6) or pursuant to the Homeowner’s Associations governing documents, rather, the Homeowner’s Association has non-statutory voluntary reserves.
Joseph Riopelle obtained a dismissal of a Petition for Arbitration on behalf of Condominium in southwest Florida. Arguments raised in opposition to the Petition for Arbitration by Joseph, not only obtained dismissal of the Arbitration but also convinced Petitioner to forgo any further formal litigation against the Condominium.
Richard and Jason Debrincat filed the original civil proceeding against a group of defendants. Stephen Fischer was later added as a party defendant, but the Debrincats subsequently dropped Fischer from the underlying proceeding. Fischer then brought an action against the Debrincats for malicious prosecution. The Debrincats moved for summary judgment, arguing that the litigation privilege afforded them immunity for their conduct of joining Fischer as a defendant in the underlying lawsuit. The trial court granted summary judgment and entered a final judgment for the Debrincats. The Fourth District reversed, holding that the litigation privilege cannot be applied to bar the filing of a malicious prosecution claim. The Supreme Court of Florida approved the Fourth District Court of Appeal’s decision, holding that the litigation privilege does not bar the filing of a claim for malicious prosecution that was based on adding a party defendant to a civil suit.
In Brecker v. Delaire Country Club, Inc., 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 259 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017), the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal issued a unanimous ruling affirming the summary judgment entered in favor of the firm’s client Delaire Country Club, Inc. The Plaintiffs, members of the Country Club, brought suit challenging the results of a membership vote which approved a $4.2 million enhancement project for three of its golf courses. The project consisted of grass replacement in the fairways and rough, resurfacing and relocating cart paths and curbs, creation of new practice greens, reshaping and dredging of several lakes and renovations and extensions to the driving range complex. The Plaintiffs argued that the procedures used to validate the vote did not comply with the Country Club’s governing documents, and that the Country Club unlawfully prevented certain membership classes from voting on the project, thus rendering the results invalid. The firm’s lawyers successfully established that the Country Club correctly interpreted and applied its governing documents pertaining to the proper voting method and the membership classes eligible to vote on the project. The trial court therefore granted the firm’s motion for summary judgment and ruled that the vote had been validly conducted. On appeal, the Fourth District agreed with the trial court’s conclusions and awarded the Country Club attorneys’ fees and costs. Partners Kyle T. Berglin, Esq. and Frank Colonnelli, Jr., Esq. represented Delaire Country Club, Inc.
An insured was sued and incurred over $400,000 in legal fees before notifying its liability carrier and tendering the defense of the lawsuit to its carrier. The liability carrier, upon notification, picked up the defense of its insured but refused to reimburse the insured for the pre-tender legal fees the insured incurred. The court found that Florida’s Claims Administration Statute (Section 627.426 Fla. Stat.) “does not apply to prevent Travelers [insurer] from enforcing a provision of the liability insurance policy that excludes EmbroidMe [insured] from obtaining reimbursement for attorney’s fees it chose to incur prior to requesting Travelers to defend and indemnify it in its pending litigation.” Also important in the holding of Embroidme.com, Inc., the court made the distinction that the Insurer relied on an exclusion, not a coverage defense, in its refusal to pay the insured’s pre-tender legal expenses and thus, the Claims Administration Statute did not control.
In Kuhajda v. Borden Dairy Co. of Al., LLC, SC15-1682, the Florida Supreme Court issued a decision holding that Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.442 (c)(2)(F)’s provision requiring a proposal for settlement state “whether attorney’s fees are part of the legal claim” is procedural and “totally irrelevant” to enforcement when the complaint does not seek attorneys’ fees. The Supreme Court’s decision approves the Fourth District decision in Bennett v. American Learning Systems of Boca Delray, Inc., 857 So.2d 986 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003), and quashes two First District Court of Appeal decisions: Borden Dairy Co. of Alabama, LLC v. Kuhajda, 171 So.3d 242 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015), and Colvin v. Clements & Ashmore, P.A., 182 So.2d 924 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016).
BRPC successfully defended its clients in an auto negligence case obtaining a Final Order of Dismissal on BRPC’s Motion to Dismiss for Fraud upon the Court. Plaintiff brought a negligence suit against BRPC’s clients seeking to recover damages for personal injuries. In deposition Plaintiff provided sworn testimony that that she has a permanent limp which required her to use a cane at all times when she walked, that she needed a cane or handrail to walk up and down steps otherwise she was unable to do it, that she was unable to carry large boxes, heavy or bulky items, and that she cannot walk straight because her leg moves out to the left. BRPC produced video surveillance evidence in direct conflict with this testimony and successfully showed that Plaintiff failed to testify truthfully in a manner than was more than a mistake, neglect, or inadvertence. The Court found that BRPC, on behalf of its’ clients had proven, clearly and convincingly, that Plaintiff implemented a deliberate scheme calculated to subvert the judicial process, warranting dismissal and final judgment in favor of BRPC’s clients.
In Frazier-White, the Eleventh Circuit held that an employer did not discriminate (hence, the plaintiff failed under prong (3) set forth above) under the ADA or the Florida Civil Rights Act by failing to provide a reasonable accommodation where the employee proposed two accommodations: to allow the employee “an indefinite extension of her light-duty status and reassignment to some other, unspecified position.” Frazier-White v. Gee, 818 F.3d 1249, 1256 (11th 2016). Because of the nature of the plaintiff’s medical condition in Frazier-White v. Gee, the plaintiff did not know and did not suggest a time frame for when she was able to return to her full-duty position. The court found that such an indefinite extension was unreasonable as a matter of law as the ADA is intended to cover people who perform the essential functions of their jobs “presently or in the immediate future.” Wood v. Green, 323 F. 3d 1309, 1314 (11th Cir. 2003). The Eleventh Circuit made clear in Frazier-White v. Gee that while employers are required to make reasonable accommodations under the ADA when doing so they do not, as a matter of law, have to allow an employee to remain on light duty status in perpetuity or create a new job for them. Frazier-White v. Gee, 818 F.3d 1249 (11th Cir. 2016).
The Fourth District Court of Appeal withdrew its initial Opinion Granting Appellate Attorney’s Fees in a lawsuit involving claims brought against the defendants alleging violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practice Act §§ 501.201-.213, Florida Statutes (2014)(“FDUPTA”) and the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act (“FCCPA”) and substituted with an Opinion denying appellate attorney’s fees. The Fourth District Court of Appeal aligned with the First District Court of Appeals in Heindel v. Southside Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 476 So.2d 266, 270 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)(“In summary, we hold that to recover attorney’s fees a must (1) recover judgment on the chapter 501, part II claim, and (2) recover a net judgment in the entire case.” Because Appellant Banner prevailed solely on his FCCPA claim but did not prevail on his FDUPTA claim the Court found that under the Heidel approach Banner was not entitled to appellate attorney’s fees because he did not prevail on the entire case and a section 501.205 recovery requires that a party recover a net judgment in the entire case not just the FDIPTA claim or another theory of liability.

References: § 881
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.