Source: https://www.bestlawyers.com/lawyers/jeffrey-j-harradine/206245
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 14:55:42+00:00

Document:
Described by one opponent as a “thorough and thoughtful strategist and a shrewd litigator,” Jeff handles complex business litigation for some of the country’s top corporations. He is equally comfortable sitting at the plaintiff's or defendant's table, as he regularly succeeds in both capacities. Although he calls Rochester home, Jeff’s cases have taken him from New York to California, and placed him before numerous federal courts, the Delaware Chancery Court, the American Arbitration Association, and the International Chamber of Commerce.
He has successfully guided clients through disputes involving the Uniform Commercial Code (Articles 2, 2A, 3, 4 & 9), contractual services agreements, commercial leases, and franchise law. Although business disputes may resolve through settlement or motion practice, some do not, and in those cases, Jeff has a proven track record of success in both commercial trials and arbitrations. Indeed, in 2013, he was part of the team that secured one of the largest commercial verdicts in the Western District of New York.
As a complement to his business litigation and counseling work, Jeff handles matters involving employment and workplace discrimination. He regularly provides opinions on the enforceability of restrictive covenants, and lectures on that subject as well.
In addition, Jeff also has an active intellectual property practice. He represents clients in copyright matters ranging from software license disputes to substantial similarity infringement battles. He represents clients involved in trademark infringement disputes as well: In a recent win for franchisors, he successfully argued for the extension of the definition of trademark counterfeiter in the Third Circuit to include holdover franchisees using authentic marks.
Jeff was named one of Rochester’s top “Forty under 40” professionals in 2018, and has been recognized locally and statewide for his legal acumen, his professionalism, and ethics.
Wegmans Food Markets, Inc. v. Tax Appeals Tribunal of the State of New York, 155 A.D.3d 1352 (3d Dept. 2017): Led the Appellate Division to overturn the decisions of the New York State Division of Tax Appeals and Tax Appeals Tribunal, and held that certain information services purchased were not taxable as the service was personal and individual in nature, and was not capable of being incorporated into reports furnished to others. This decision was hailed as the first rejection of the New York Department of Taxation and Finance’s audit policy of treating any information service derived from public or common sources as taxable.
Motel 6 Operating LP v. HI Hotel Group LLC, 670 Fed. Appx. 759 (3d Cir. 2016): Established precedent in the Third Circuit that a holdover franchisee who continued to use trade and service marks after termination was a trademark counterfeiter under the Lanham Act.
Kodak Graphic Communications Canada Company v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 834 (W.D.N.Y. 2015), aff’d 640 Fed. Appx. 36 (2d. Cir. 2016): Successfully litigated complex joint development dispute which, after a 13-day trial, resulted in a $16.5 million verdict.
Kingsbury, Inc. v. GE Power Conversion UK Ltd., et al., 78 F. Supp.3d 611 (E.D.Pa. 2014): Achieved dismissal of claims in favor of English jurisdiction in dispute involving complicated offer/acceptance and UCC analysis.
Emerllahu v. Pactiv, LLC, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 155380 (W.D.N.Y. Oct. 30, 2013): Won summary judgment in employment discrimination suit alleging disability discrimination, retaliation, and an impermissible medical inquiry.
Project Orange Associates v. General Electric International, Inc., Index No. 117245/2008 (Sup. Ct., New York Cty. 2010): Obtained $4.1 million arbitration award after 3-week arbitration in contractual services dispute.
Images Everywhere, et al. v. Six Flags Theme Parks, et al., No. BC365735 (Los Angeles Superior Court 2008), aff’d 2011 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 3107 (Cal. App. 4th 2011): Secured defense verdict in contractual dispute involving theme park photography concessions.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.