In a major litigation under the First Amendment and New York Religious Corporations Law involving a dispute over control of the Long Island temple of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON), the firm won the reversal of the lower court's dismissal of two of three of ISKCON's claims and the denial of its preliminary injunction motion. The firm represents the highest ecclesiastical authority in the ISKCON movement, the Governing Body Commission, which brought an action against various individuals who are advocating a heretical doctrine in the client's Long Island temple. The lower court dismissed ISKCON's claims for trespass and usurpation of corporate authority, holding that resolution of these claims would impermissibly require the court to become entangled in religious issues, which is barred by the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the lower court and accepted ISKCON's argument that the claims could be decided using neutral principles of law under the New York Religious Corporation Law and real property law principles, and without violating the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment Establishment Clause. The appellate court also granted ISKCON's motion for a preliminary injunction to prevent defendants from disposing of the property at issue. Kelley v. Garuda 36 A.D.3d 593, 827 N.Y.S.2d 293 (2d Dep't 2007).
In October 2002, one of the firm's appellate victories was featured in a front-page article in the New York Law Journal and the full text of the 19-page decision was published as the Decision of the Day in the Law Journal a few days later. The firm's clients, two elderly sisters, were defrauded out of their life savings by an agent of the Equitable Life Assurance Society. Although he had been fired by Equitable, it neither notified the sisters of the agent's termination nor retrieved his business cards, Equitable stationary and brochures. As a result, the fired agent was able to generate bogus account statements and give the sisters the impression he was still an Equitable agent. The lower court dismissed the sisters' case, finding that Equitable could not be held liable for the agent's post-termination acts unless Equitable had committed affirmative acts after the agent's termination that gave the impression that the agent continued to have authority as an Equitable agent. The Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously reinstated the sisters' claims. The appellate court accepted our argument that the sisters would be entitled to presume that the agent remained authorized to act for Equitable absent (i) notice that his authority had been revoked, or (ii) other circumstances that would have rendered it unreasonable to believe that the agent had authority to act for Equitable. Parlato v. The Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States, 299 A.D.2d 108, 749 N.Y.S.2d 216 (1st Dept. 2002). The claims were settled on favorable terms after the appellate decision.
Another of the firm's precedent-setting litigation victories was featured in a front-page article in the New York Law Journal, and the full text of the decision was published as a Decision of Interest in the Law Journal a few days later. The case involved a typical property dispute between next-door neighbors. The firm's clients' next-door neighbors introduced a particularly destructive form of bamboo onto their own property. The bamboo spread onto the clients property and grew to encompass over a 500 square foot area. A lawsuit was commenced for nuisance and trespass. During the litigation, the bamboo spread onto the firm's clients' property to the extent that it threatened the clients' home's foundation, retaining wall and swimming pool. The firm advised the clients to commence immediately remediation of the bamboo to mitigate any further damages that may be caused by the bamboo, even though the defendants' attorney had not inspected the condition. The firm also advised defendants' counsel of the urgent need for him to inspect the condition of the premises. However, defendants' counsel did not respond to the firm's notice. By the time the defendants' attorney inspected the clients' property, most of the bamboo had been removed to a dumpster in the clients' front yard. The defendants moved to dismiss the case on the ground that the clients' intentionally destroyed evidence necessary for the defendants to mount a proper defense.
The court denied the next-door neighbors' motion to dismiss and confirmed the propriety of the firm's advice to the clients that the removal of the bamboo, where done to mitigate damages, does not warrant the harsh sanction of dismissal of the case. While other states have followed this rule, this decision is the first in New York to hold that spoliation of evidence does not include the destruction of evidence necessary for mitigation of damages. Yager v. Thompson, 781 N.Y.S.2d 628 (Dist. Ct. Nassau 2003). After this decision, defendants' insurance carrier paid the full cost of the remediation of the bamboo and restoration of the clients' property to its original, landscaped condition.
The firm regularly handles significant litigation matters as well as construction change orders and claims. Other important reported cases include a recent federal civil rights action which resulted in a settlement of $1,000,000.00 for the client against the Nassau County Police Department and the Nassau County Department of Corrections. Another recent settlement let to a $550,000.00 payment on a dispute between a joint venture on various construction projects for wrongful acquisition of business opportunities. Another recent lawsuit resulted in the court granting summary judgment on behalf of a masonry subcontractor where the general contractor attempted to claim one year after the mason left the project that the mason delayed the project. Recent change orders include a $200,000.00 negotiated delay claim for a five-month delay on a Federal Post Office Construction project with an original contract price of $1.2 million dollars
La Reddola Lester & Associates, LLP
600 Old Country Road, Suite 224
Garden City, NY 11530
Phone: 516-357-0056
Phone: 516-745-1951
Fax: 516-357-0069
Map
From our Garden City, New York offices we serve clients across Long Island and throughout New York City, including Nassau, Suffolk, Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens, Kings, Manhattan and Westchester counties incorporating Astoria, Babylon, Coram, Deer Park, East Northport, Farmingdale, Flushing, Freeport, Greenpoint, Hauppauge, Hempstead, Hicksville, Holbrook, Huntington, Huntington Station, Hunts Point, Lindenhurst, Long Island City, Mineola, Plainview, Riverhead, Smithtown, West Babylon, West Hempstead, West Islip and White Plains.
