The Appellate Division, First Department, has upheld a Supreme Court ruling ordering New York City to disclose, under New York's Freedom of Information Law ("FOIL"), emails between the New York City Mayor's Office and former New York City School Chancellor Catherine Black. Schlam Stone client and independent journalist Sergio Hernandez first made his request for the emails when Ms. Black was selected as School Chancellor in November 2010. Since that time, the Mayor's Office has argued that communications between Ms. Black and the government dating to the period before she became Chancellor were exempt from FOIL, principally under the exemption for inter-agency and intra-agency communications. In affirming the lower court's rejection of that argument, the Appellate Division made clear that because Ms. Black was not yet School Chancellor when she was exchanging emails with the Mayor's Office, neither the inter-agency nor intra-agency exemptions applied so as to shield the emails from public disclosure. The court's order requires the disclosure of the e-mails within 15 days. Mr. Hernandez is represented by Schlam Stone & Dolan partner Elizabeth Wolstein, counsel Michael Marcus, and associate Raffi Melkonian, who argued the appeal.
Litigation in the wake of the financial collapse of a Broadway musical production received substantial press coverage Schlam Stone & Dolan, LLP has filed a civil complaint against two individuals who defrauded the producers of a musical based on the 1938 novel Rebecca by Daphne du Maurier. The defendants, Mark Christopher Hotton and Sherri Hotton, have recently been arrested by federal authorities in connection with the scheme. The complaint also names as defendants the unknown individual(s) who sent tortious and defamatory emails about the production to an angel investor who appeared at the eleventh hour to rescue the musical, causing the investor to withdraw. Schlam Stone partner Erik S. Groothuis represents the plaintiffs in the action, Rebecca Broadway L.P. v. Hotton, et al., 653659/2012, New York State Supreme Court, New York County (Manhattan).
Various news articles about the financial collapse of a Broadway musical production began to appear in October 2012.
New York Business Divorce provides a two-part analysis of Justice Allan Weiss's post-trial decision in Chiu v. Chiu, a long-running battle between two brothers over the ownership and valuation of a real estate holding company. The prevailing Chiu brother, Winston, is represented by Schlam Stone & Dolan partners Jeffrey M. Eilender, David Katz and Jonathan Mazer and associate Samuel L. Butt, the latter two serving as trial counsel. The most recent article examines SSD's successful argument that the cash value of Winston's share of the closely-held corporation should not be subjected to a marketability discount, and the earlier article examines the legal issues surrounding Judge Weiss's ruling that Winston retained a minority interest in the LLC.
New York Business Divorce revisits the case of Chiu v. Chiu in a two-part analysis on the occasion of a post-trial decision by Justice Allan Weiss in this long-running battle between two brothers over the ownership and valuation of a real estate holding company. The prevailing Chiu brother, Winston, is represented by Schlam Stone & Dolan partners Jeffrey M. Eilender, David Katz and Jonathan Mazer and associate Samuel L. Butt.
On August 9, the New York Law Journal featured a report on the decision by the Appellate Division First Department modifying a lower court's decision by requiring four New York limited liability companies to indemnify their former Managers for the full amount of attorneys' fees awarded by a Special Referee. The appeals court was divided on the novel issue of whether the LLCs should also have been required to pay the fees incurred by the former Managers in successfully vindicating their indemnification rights. The case was ultimately settled on terms favorable to Schlam Stone & Dolan's clients.
In a case of first impression in New York, Schlam Stone & Dolan partner David Katz obtained a preliminary injunction in favor of a former employee of Checker's Drive-In Restaurants whose stock options were about to expire, tolling the exercise deadline of his options. The injunction was granted pending the adjudication of the claimant's breach of contract claim alleging that his employer had breached a shareholder agreement provision requiring the employer to provide him with certain financial information so he could make an informed decision about whether to exercise his options. New York County Commercial Division Supreme Court Justice Melvin Schweitzer ruled that the Schlam Stone & Dolan client had demonstrated that he was likely to succeed on the merits of his breach of contract claim and that he would suffer irreparable harm if the exercise deadline was not tolled. The case settled shortly after the preliminary injunction was granted.
Schlam Stone & Dolan lawyers Michael Battle, Bradley Nash and Raffi Melkonian have secured a preliminary injunction directing a D & O insurance carrier to advance legal defense fees to a corporate officer, despite a guilty verdict against him in a criminal trial. New York County Commercial Division Justice Shirley Kornreich ordered Scottsdale Insurance Company to advance the attorneys' fees, holding that the fact of conviction was insufficient to trigger the policy's exclusions.
Martindale-Hubbell has named Schlam Stone & Dolan as one of the New York area's top law firms. This elite rating is based upon the number of the Firm's lawyers who were rated "preeminent" by their peers in surveys of professional merit and integrity.
Schlam Stone & Dolan partners Richard Dolan, Harvey Stone and Elizabeth Wolstein, together with counsel Ronald Russo, are representing controversial radio host and blogger Harold "Hal" Turner as he appeals his 2010 conviction for threatening three Chicago-area federal judges when he criticized, in a commentary on his website, the Court's decision upholding two local gun ordinances. At oral argument on May 15, 2012, Mr. Dolan urged the Second Circuit to overturn Mr. Turner's conviction, arguing that his comments communicated no threat of imminent harm and were therefore protected by the First Amendment.