Source: http://schwartzresnickdavidoff.com/cases/
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 13:10:26+00:00

Document:
The SRD Law Firm has had an opportunity to represent clients in very high profile matters and has produced great results for its clients. You do not need to be involved with a high profile matter, nor do you need to be an individual of notoriety for the SRD Law Firm to handle your matter. Mr. Davidoff and the attorneys at the SRD Law Firm treat all clients equal, regardless of the size of the case, all of their clients are equally important. The SRD Law Firm’s approach is that each client’s case is the most important matter in their lives, so it is the most important case to the SRD Law Firm.
The SRD Law Firm handles matters of all types and sizes. Whether the client needs a will or contract drafted, or the client is involved in a state or federal criminal case, or the client is involved in a commercial litigation matter, the SRD Law Firm is always prepared to represent its clients.
In re Enron, et al. v. Goldman,Sachs & Co., Lehman Commercial Paper Inc., Allstate life insurance company, UBS Global Asset Management, BancoCentroAmericano de Integracion Economica, and Banco de Guatemala Bank, United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, Case No. 01-16034 (AJG).
The SRD Law Firm was retained to represent the Client, a former Enron Corporation employee. The Client was a manager in the Equity Trading Department. Mr. Davidoff advised Client on his activities while he was an employee at Enron Corporation. Additionally, Mr. Davidoff attended meetings and discussions between the Client and the parties involved with the In re Enron litigation at which the Mr. Davidoff advised the Client and ensured his protection from any criminal and civil prosecution. To note, the Client was an active member of the Enron trading group, and recommended the company against many of the trades that Enron executed. The Client was not a party in any of the litigation, and there are no allegations made against the Client for any wrongdoing. The SRD Law Firm continues to represent the Client in numerous other matters.
The Prudential Insurance Company of America, et al v. Bank of America Corporation, et al – In re parmalat securities, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Case No. #04MD1653.
The SRD Law Firm was retained by the Client, a former Bank of America employee. The Client was an investment banker at Bank of America and worked for several years on the Parmalat transactions, the Italian dairy company that diversified into an international conglomerate, but was riddled with accounting and other financial fraud.
Mr. Davidoff advised the Client throughout the pretrial discovery process in the lawsuit between the Parmalat investors and Bank of America. Mr. Davidoff secured protections for the Client so as the Client did not face any criminal or civil liability for his testimony. Mr. Davidoff assisted in the Bank of America attorneys with the preparation of Client for depositions, and attended the depositions with Client in which the Client endured several days of questioning by more than ten different lawyers.
Client was not a party to any of the litigation, nor have there ever been any allegations made against Client for any wrongdoing. The SRD Law Firm continues to represent the Client in other endeavors.
The SRD Law Firm represented Mr. Yee against the State of Florida. Mr. Yee was charged with attempted murder and armed kidnapping, both felonies punishable by life sentences in prison, and was held no bond on these two non-bondable offenses. If convicted of the initial charges, Mr. Yee faced the likely possibility that he would have received the maximum possible sentence of life in prison. The initial plea offer was fifteen years in state prison.
Mr. Davidoff was able to secure a reasonable bond for Mr. Yee after successfully arguing his motion for a bond and the Court conducted an Arthur Hearing (bond hearing). Based on Mr. Davidoff’s cross examination of the State of Florida’s witnesses and making arguments to the Court, the Judge determined that the evidence in the case was insufficient and issued a ruling that there was “proof not evident and presumption not great”. Thus, Mr. Yee was released on a bond.
After conducting a thorough investigation, with the assistance of private investigators instructed by Mr. Davidoff, and taking the depositions of all the witnesses, Mr. Davidoff was successful in obtaining a non-jail plea offer for Mr. Yee and having the State of Florida reduce the charges to which the plea agreement was based upon. Subsequent to the plea offer, Mr. Davidoff was able to further reduce the types of probation that Mr. Yee was being supervised on.
People of the State of New York v. Ervin Fernandez, New York County Supreme Court, Criminal Division, Docket #2006NY022936 (Indictment #1957/2006).
The SRD Law Firm represented Mr. Fernandez against the State of New York. Mr. Fernandez was charged with Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance in the Third Degree (Class B Felony) and he was classified as a Predicate Felon. Mr. Fernandez was facing a prison sentence of at least nine years and a maximum of twenty-five years plus lifetime probation if convicted of the initial charges brought against him.
After evaluating the case and investigating the allegations charged against Mr. Fernandez, Mr. Davidoff was successful in convincing the Assistant District Attorney that there was a compelling motion to suppress, which if the Court ruled in Mr. Fernandez’s favor on this motion all of the evidence in the case would have been excluded and the charges against Mr. Fernandez would have been dismissed. Mr. Fernandez received a non-jail plea deal in which if he was successful the plea would be vacated and the charges against him would have been dismissed.
During the course of the probationary period, it was alleged that Mr. Fernandez violated the terms of his plea agreement. If the Court determined that Mr. Fernandez violated the terms of the plea agreement, Mr. Fernandez faced up to eight years in state prison. Mr. Davidoff was again retained by Mr. Fernandez to represent him for purposes of the violation. Mr. Davidoff was successful in investigating the violation, obtaining the evidence that disproved the allegations in the violation, and convinced the Court and the Assistant District Attorney to dismiss the violation and restore Mr. Fernandez to the original probation agreement. Earlier than Mr. Fernandez expected, the Court vacated the plea agreement and dismissed all the pending charges against Mr. Fernandez. Mr. Fernandez does not have a record of a conviction in this matter and he did not receive any jail or prison time for his involvement in this action. The SRD Law Firm has represented Mr. Fernandez in several other matters after the conclusion of this matter.
United States Government v. Miladys Gomez, United States District Court for New Jersey, Case Number 04-533 (FSH).
The SRD Law Firm represented Ms. Gomez, a former government employee who, was a charged with theft of over $400,000.00 from the Department of Housing and Urban Development and abused her position of public trust. The United States sought to incarcerate Ms. Gomez to a period of time in excess of seven years. When the SRD Law Firm entered the case the United States immediately sought to reduce Ms. Gomez’s incarceration.
Mr. Davidoff evaluated the facts surrounding Ms. Gomez’s charges and her personal situation. Mr. Davidoff was able to negotiate a plea deal in which the United States stipulated to some downward departures and still permitted Mr. Davidoff to file a brief for further downward departures from the sentencing guidelines. Mr. Davidoff did file a brief on behalf of Ms. Gomez in which Mr. Davidoff attacked the sentencing guidelines as they were outlined by the United States and was able to establish to the Court that Ms. Gomez should have received a sentence below the sentencing guidelines as outlined by the United States. At the sentencing, the Court agreed with Mr. Davidoff’s arguments that Ms. Gomez should be sentenced to a term of imprisonment less than the United States sought, and, thus Ms. Gomez was sentenced to a period of incarceration less than that which the sentencing guidelines required and the United States sought. Ms. Gomez served a prison sentencethat amounted to 25% of the time that the United States sought prior to Mr. Davidoff’s involvement in the matter.
Daniel Perla Associates v. Simeon Soterakis, Supreme Court of the state of New York, Nassau County, Index Number 8953/1999.
The SRD Law Firm was retained by Daniel Perla Associates to represent it in the recovery monies that were guaranteed by Simeon Soterakis, a New York attorney, in a business loan. The Client loaned monies to two investors and Mr. Soterakis acted as the lawyer for the borrowers and also guaranteed the repayment of the loan in the transaction. After the Note was not repaid, the Client sued Simeon Soterakis claiming that Mr. Soterakis forged the signatures of one of the borrowers and that he failed to honor his guarantee by not personally repaying the loan.
The Client terminated its relationship with its counsel after over six years of litigation and no progress was made in the matter. Mr. Davidoff took a very aggressive approach in the case and filed a motion for summary judgment, which was opposed by Mr. Soterakis. However, the Court agreed with Mr. Davidoff’s arguments in his legal memorandum and granted the Client summary judgment and a monetary award of $497,333.33 plus attorneys’ fees, costs, and future interest. Mr. Soterakis filed an appeal and ultimately conceded his frivolous defenses by settling the case and paying the Client. Mr. Davidoff was able to obtain this excellent result less then a year after entering the case, with minimal costs to the Client. The SRD Law Firm represents the client and its principal in numerous other matters.
Maria and Sung Lee v. Nu-Valet Cleaners, Inc. and Han Yoo a/k/a Steven Yoo, Supreme Court of the state of New York, New York County, Index Number 602733/2005.
The SRD Law Firm was retained by Maria and Sung Lee to recover monies paid under the terms of a contract for the purchase of a lease. The Clients entered into the agreement to purchase a lease for valet space located in a luxury New York City apartment building. The Clients paid $62,500.00 to the defendants for the purchase of the lease and the entity that allegedly owned the lease. The lease was purported to be a fifteen year lease. Unbeknownst to the Clients, the lease was a month to month lease with a ninety day termination provision at the complete discretion of the landlord. A few years into the lease, the landlord exercised the termination provision and terminated the lease, which caused the Clients to lose their business location and a substantial portion of their business revenues and income.
Mr. Davidoff was successful in obtaining a judgment against Mr. Yoo and Nu-Valet Cleaners for the Clients. After obtaining the judgment, Mr. Davidoff established to the Court the Clients’ damages at a hearing in which Mr. Davidoff presented evidence from a certified public accountant who extrapolated the Clients’ past tax records and other data to project the losses that the Clients would suffer over the years of the lease that were paid for but not delivered. Mr. Davidoff obtained a judgment from the Court and for the Clients in the amount of $1,961,856.42 plus interest and collection costs.
People of the State of New York v. Francis K. Decker, Jr., New York County Criminal Court, Docket #2007NY001573.
The SRD Law Firm was retained by Francis K. Decker who was a retired attorney and former partner at the prestigious New York City law firm of Latham & Watkins. The Office of the New York County District Attorneys alleged that Mr. Decker failed to file and pay state and city income taxes for several decades, which if he was indicted for such accusations he would have faced several decades in state prison. Further, the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance claimed that Mr. Decker failed to file and pay state and city income taxes for over thirty (30) years.
Mr. Davidoff was able to obtain a misdemeanor plea deal for Mr. Decker, thus preventing the Client from becoming a convicted felon and serving a substantial prison sentence. Mr. Davidoff also represented Mr. Decker with regards to his tax liability to the state and city. Mr. Davidoff was able to negotiate a settlement with the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance in which Mr. Decker had penalties and interest waived and only had to pay half of his tax liability. Additionally, Mr. Davidoff was successful in obtaining preferential payment terms, including an interest free payment schedule and other benefits that were in Mr. Decker’s best interests. Finally, Mr. Davidoff represented Mr. Decker in the Grievance filed against him by the Appellate Division, first Department Disciplinary Committee. Mr. Davidoff was successful in obtaining a resolution in which Mr. Decker voluntarily resigned from the Court rather than having sanctions imposed against him by the Court.
People of the State of New York v. The Client, Albany County Criminal Court, Docket #07-178588.
The SRD Law Firm was retained by the Client who was a partner at the prestigious New York City law firm of Kelley Drye & Warren, LLP. The Office of the New York State Attorney General alleged that the Client failed to file and pay state and city income taxes for a period of seven (7) years, which if she was indicted for such accusations he would have faced seven felony and seven misdemeanor charges. Further, the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance sought to recover back taxes, penalties, and interest, which totaled more than twice the amount of taxes the Client should have originally paid.
Mr. Davidoff was able to obtain a misdemeanor plea deal for the Client, thus preventing the Client from becoming a convicted felon and serving any jail or prison time. Further, by obtaining a non-felony plea offer, Mr. Davidoff was able to prevent the Client from having her privileges of practicing law suspended. Mr. Davidoff also represented the Client with regards to her tax liability to the state and city. Mr. Davidoff was able to negotiate a settlement with the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance in which the Client had penalties and interest waived. Additionally, Mr. Davidoff was successful in obtaining preferential payment terms, which included a five year interest free payment schedule and other benefits that were in the Client’s best interest.
In the Matter of The Client, (admitted as The Client), an attorney and counselor-at-law: Departmental disciplinary committee for the First Judicial Department, Petitioner, The Client, Respondent. Case Number 2007.1518.
2009 NY Slip Op 00264.
The Client hired the SRD Law Firm to represent her in an action in which her privileges for practicing law were in jeopardy. The Client, an attorney in New York City, was convicted of a misdemeanor. The First Departmental Grievance Committee filed a motion with the Appellate Division First Department seeking a determination that the Client had been convicted of a “serious crime” and should be sanctioned.
The Grievance Committee sought to suspend the Client’s privileges to practice law in the state of New York. Mr. Davidoff vigorously defended the Client and attacked the Grievance Committee’s interpretation of the law and facts surrounding the Client’s case. After the discovery process, Mr. Davidoff represented the Client at a hearing that consisted of a Panel of five attorneys. The Grievance Committee argued to the Panel the proper sanction was a suspension. However, Mr. Davidoff successful argued to the Panel that the proper sanction was a public censure and that any further sanction would be inappropriate. The Panel agreed with Mr. Davidoff and recommended to the Court that the proper sanction was a public censure. Mr. Davidoff then argues to the Court that it should confirm the Panel’s decision and reject the Committee’s recommendation. The Court sanctioned the Client with a public censure based on Mr. Davidoff’s successful arguments, and the Client did not lose any of her privileges to practice law.
Hewlett-Packard Company v. Maxicom PC, Inc., Circuit Court of Palm Beach County, Florida. Case #50-2008CA003686XXXXMB.
The owners of Maxicom, PC retained the Davidoff Law Firm prior to the instant action being filed. Hewlett Packard sought to recover over ten million dollars from Maxicom and its owners alleging that Maxicom and its owners engaged in a fraudulent scheme to defraud Hewlett Packard of millions of dollars by engaging in the sale of Hewlett Packard electronic hardware in the Gray Market.
Mr. Davidoff engaged the attorneys for HewlettePackard prior to any civil or criminal action was taken against Maxicom and its owners. Mr. Davidoff was able to establish to Hewlett Packard that its clients did not intentionally defraud the company, nor did they profit from the transactions that they entered into. In a confidential settlement agreement, Mr. Davidoff was able to obtain terms for Maxicom and its principals that the clients were ecstatic with. Even though the terms are confidential, it is able to be told that there were no criminal charges filed and Maxicom’s principals were not named in this action.
Cape Lumber Company v. the Commissioner of internal revenue, United States Tax Court. Docket no. 30213-07L.
The SRD Law Firm was hired to handle a federal tax matter, failure to pay federal withholding taxes, for Cape Lumber Company, which is a company in the trestle business. After conducting a thorough review of Cape Lumber’s records and investigating its past history, Mr. Davidoff made a determination that the Internal Revenue Service erred in rejecting Cape Lumber’s installment agreement for the repayment of past due federal withholding taxes, interest and penalties.
Mr. Davidoff filed a petition on behalf of Cape Lumber with the Tax Court seeking judicial relief and preventing the Internal Revenue Service from levying on its liens. The Internal Revenue Service responded to the petition and filed a motion for summary judgment. Mr. Davidoff responded to the motion for summary judgment on behalf of Cape Lumber and argued that the Internal Revenue Service was not entitled to summary judgment because there were facts in dispute. Mr. Davidoff’s arguments surrounded the fact that at the Appeals level, the Internal Revenue Service did not consider less intrusive and egregious collection alternatives to alevy action, and, therefore not only was the Internal Revenue Service not entitled summary judgment but Cape Lumber was entitled to judgment preventing a levy action. The Tax Court issued a rare ruling against the Internal Revenue Service in which it denied summary judgment and stated that there were facts in dispute and the matter should proceed to trial. The case is still pending as a result of the defeat of the summary judgment motion.
United States v. Allentown Internal Medicine, P.C. and James A. Webb, United States District Court, District Court of New Jersey. Case no. 08-4185(FLW).
The SRD Law Firm was retained to represent Dr. James Webb and his medical practice, Allentown Internal Medicine, P.C. The United States filed a complaint in federal court alleging that Dr. Webb and his medical practice failed to file and pay various taxes and tax returns over a period of time that dated back to 2003. The Government took a unique position seeking to obtain a permanent injunction which would require Dr. Webb and his medical practice to timely file its various tax returns and pay its taxes. Mr. Davidoff attacked the Government’s arguments head on by arguing that the proper remedy was not a permanent injunction, but the Government should use the resources provided to it through the Internal Revenue Service’s collection proceedings.
After various discussions and procedural maneuvers, Mr. Davidoff was successful in arguing his position to the Government that the Court was not likely to order a permanent injunction as such order would only require Dr. Webb and his medical practice to do what they were already obligated by law to do, which is file tax returns and pay the taxes due and owing. Therefore, Mr. Davidoff, in a settlement with the Government, was able to obtain a three year injunction rather than a permanent lifetime injunction. Further, Mr. Davidoff preserved his clients’ rights to petition the Internal Revenue Service and seek collection alternatives for any and all pass due and owing taxes.

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