• All Courts
  • Federal Courts
  • Bankruptcies
  • PTAB
  • ITC
Track Search
Export
Download All
Active Filters1
40 results

Landy Wolf, PLLC v. Anton Sanko

Docket 651419/2024, New York State, New York County, Supreme Court (Mar. 18, 2024)
Case TypeCommercial - Contract
TagsCommercial, Civil, Contract
Plaintiff Landy Wolf, PLLC f/k/a Steven Landy & Associates, PLLC
Defendant Anton Sanko
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

EXHIBIT(S) - N NYS Bar Ethics Opinion 952

Document Landy Wolf, PLLC v. Anton Sanko, 651419/2024, 33 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York County Jul. 25, 2024)
The lender has proposed, as a promotion, to provide legal representation to potential borrowers as to closing services in such transactions for a $25 fee.
On the question of consentability, the opinion notes: “The typical seller in a residential real estate transaction is relatively unsophisticated when compared to the institutional lender who, by its size, power, and business potential to the law firm, may have an inherently stronger relationship with the lawyer.
This imbalance could interfere with the lawyer’s ability to provide competent and diligent representation to each affected client, implicating Rule 1.7(b)(1).” N.Y. State 867 ¶10 (2011) (citation and footnote omitted).
Such arrangements are permissible only if they meet certain conditions including informed consent and freedom from interference with the lawyer’s independent professional judgment.
The committee found that the differing interests of the two clients “cannot be readily reconciled” and that in a typical real estate transaction, the conflict is not consentable.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

AFFIDAVIT OR AFFIRMATION IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION

Document Landy Wolf, PLLC v. Anton Sanko, 651419/2024, 19 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York County Jul. 25, 2024)
In December 2021, at or about the time the property was to be sold, Landy filed an Order to Show Cause in the Partition Action to obtain a “charging lien” against me.
Landy was introduced to me by James Nelson, a broker at Massey-Knackel who was acting on my behalf in connection with the sale of my interest in the Property.
It is indisputable that Landy is seeking to recover from me in this case the alleged legal fees reflected in the November 15, 2017 Invoices.
I have been advised that in accordance with Ethics Opinion 952 of the New York State Bar Association, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit N, an attorney may not simultaneously represent a lender and a borrower.
Anton Sanko CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 22 NYCRR § 202.8-b(c) CHARLES E. BOULBOL, an attorney duly admitted to practice before the Courts of the State of New York, hereby affirms the following to be true under penalties of perjury:
cite Cite Document
Analyze

EXHIBIT(S) - A Answer

Document Landy Wolf, PLLC v. Anton Sanko, 651419/2024, 20 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York County Jul. 25, 2024)
Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole or in part because of the failure to join an indispensable party to whom Plaintiff rendered legal services allegedly at issue in this case and for which Defendant bears no responsibility.
In the alternative to the First Counterclaim, Plaintiff was unjustly enriched and benefitted from the fees paid by Sanko for services rendered to or on behalf of Tai Burnette and her purported counsel/paramour Thomas Vasti.
By reason of the foregoing, equity and good conscience require Plaintiff to make restitution to Sanko in an amount to be determined at trial but believed to be several hundred thousand dollars.
As a direct and proximate result of these breaches of contract, Sanko has suffered damages in an amount to be determined at trial, but believed to be hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Dismissal of the Complaint; In his first, second and third counterclaims, in the alternative, a money judgment equal to all legal fees paid by Sanko to Plaintiff in an amount to be determined at trial, plus interest and costs; and
cite Cite Document
Analyze

ADJOURNMENT OF MOTION -REQUEST -IN SUBMISSIONS PART -RM 130

Document Landy Wolf, PLLC v. Anton Sanko, 651419/2024, 18 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York County Jul. 11, 2024)
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between the undersigned attorneys herein, that the time for the above-named Defendants to respond to Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss Defendant’s Counterclaims, is hereby extended up through and including July 25, 2024.
IT IS HEREBY FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the time for the above-named Defendants to file Reply papers is hereby extended up through and including August 15, 2024.
IT IS HEREBY FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss Defendant’s Counterclaims currently returnable on July 18, 2024, is hereby adjourned on consent to August 16, 2024.
IT IS HEREBY FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that fax or electronic signatures shall be deemed originals for the purposes of this Stipulation and that a fax or electronic copy of this Stipulation may be filed with the clerk and used for all purposes.
Dated: July 10, 2024 New York, New York
cite Cite Document
Analyze

NOTICE OF MOTION

Document Landy Wolf, PLLC v. Anton Sanko, 651419/2024, 6 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York County Jun. 18, 2024)
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that upon the Affirmation of Spencer A. Richards, Esq., dated
June 18, 2024 with Exhibits annexed thereto, and the Accompanying Memorandum of Law, Plaintiff, LANDY WOLF PLLC, will move this Court located at New York Supreme Court, 60 Centre Street, Room 130, New York, NY 10007, on July 18, 2024 at 9:30 o'clock in the forenoon of that day, or soon thereafter as counsel may be heard for an order: (a) Pursuant to CPLR §§ 3211 (a)(1), (a)(5), and (a)(7) dismissing Defendant’s counterclaims against Plaintiff in its entirety and with prejudice; and (b) For such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper.
papers, if any, must be served upon the undersigned at least seven (7) days prior to the return date of this motion.
Respectfully Submitted, FURMAN KORNFELD & BRENNAN LLP
Spencer A. Richards, Esq. Alec B. Neimand, Esq.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

EXHIBIT(S) - A Complaint

Document Landy Wolf, PLLC v. Anton Sanko, 651419/2024, 8 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York County Jun. 18, 2024)
On or about February 1, 2014, Defendant contacted Plaintiff to request the provision of legal services for him here in New York City, in connection with, inter alia, a pending partition action, lease negotiations, and various related matters.
Statements were rendered on each of the Invoices, all of which were sent to Defendant and/or his designated agent at regular intervals throughout the duration of the attorney- client relationship.
As set forth above, Defendant defaulted under the agreement as a result of Defendant’s failure and refusal to pay to Plaintiff for legal services rendered as those payments came due.
By reason of the foregoing, the sum of $268,084.33, plus interest, costs, and expenses now remain due and owing by Defendant to Plaintiff.
As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing, Plaintiff is entitled to damages in quantum meruit in the sum of $268,084.33, together with interest, costs, and expenses.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

EXHIBIT(S) - E Roth Complaint

Document Landy Wolf, PLLC v. Anton Sanko, 651419/2024, 12 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York County Jun. 18, 2024)
Plaintiff Anton Sanko (“Plaintiff or “Sanko”), by his attorneys, Steven Landy & Associates, PLLC, complaining of Defendant Jeffrey Roth “Defendant” or “Roth”), respectfully alleges as follows: Nature of the Action
For these reasons and others described below, Plaintiff brings this action to recover the significant damages caused by Defendant and to obtain a permanent injunction to ensure that Defendant’s misconduct does not continue.
Defendant executed the foregoing documents to the prejudice of Plaintiff's rights and for the purpose of deceiving the Court into believing that he had authority to act on behalf of all three tenants in common, including Sanko.
As a result of Defendant’s knowing, willful and repeated violations of Section 349 of the General Business Law, the Plaintiff has sustained damages and is entitled to injunctive relief, as well as $1,000.00, and an award of attorney’s fees incurred in this action.
Pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1, the undersigned, an attorney admitted to practice in the courts of New York State, certifies that, upon information and belief and reasonable inquiry, the contentions contained in the annexed document(s) are not frivolous.
cite Cite Document
Analyze
1 2 3 4 >>