Reported Decisions
In re Olympia Office, LLC, 574 B.R. 38 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2017) (Chapter 11 Debtors in possession had standing both to challenge a noteholder’s claim under 11 U.S.C. § 502(b) and to propose a plan of reorganization that modified the noteholder’s rights under 11 U.S.C. § 1123(b)(5).)
Post-Effective Date Committee of the Estate of East End Development, LLC v. Amalgamated Bank (In re East End Development, LLC), 2017 Bankr. LEXIS 949 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. Apr. 4, 2017) (Court held, among other matters, that Defendant bank did not exercise a level of control over the Debtor or the Water Street Project such that liability should be imposed under the alter ego or instrumentality theories.)
BH Sutton Mezz LLC v. Sutton 58 Associates LLC (In re BH Sutton Mezz LLC), 2016 Bankr. LEXIS 4113 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Dec. 1, 2016) (While lenders were granted judgment on their defense to the adversary proceeding filed by the Debtor asserting a “loan to own scheme” but did not prevail on the debtor’s assertion of criminal usury because the evidence did not support a finding of unconscionability given the debtor’s level of sophistication as a real estate developer.)
O’Toole v. MyPlace Dev. SP. Z O.O. (In re Sledziejowski), 2016 Bankr. LEXIS 3791 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Oct. 21, 2016) (Trustee did not establish personal jurisdiction over certain defendants in an avoidance action to recover alleged fraudulent transfers because the parties were foreign in transactions that occurred outside of the United States; however, the Trustee did satisfy her burden that jurisdictional discovery was warranted to determine if the mere department doctrine applied.)
O’Toole v. Wrobel, et al. (In re Sledziejowski), 533 B.R. 408 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2015) (Court granted the Trustee’s motion for preliminary injunction against nonparties preventing them from dissipating assets under Federal Rules Civil Procedure 65(d)(2) as they were wholly owned by two Defendants who were already covered by an injunction and were the means by which those Defendants were conducting business including the disposition of assets.)
O’Toole v. Wrobel, et al. (In re Sledziejowski), 215 Bankr. LEXIS 1523 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. May 4, 2015) (Defendant was held in civil contempt for failing to comply with a Bankruptcy Court clear and ambiguous Order to produce documents, and daily monetary sanctions were warranted since the Defendant disregarded prior orders despite numerous opportunities to produce the requested discovery and was previously sanctioned for noncompliance.)
Mendelsohn, Esq. v. Barre, et al. (In re Servo Corp. of America), 2015 Bankr. LEXIS 519 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. Feb. 20, 2015) (Once the court issued a scheduling order, Federal Rule Civil Procedure 16 required that the parties seeking to modify the pretrial schedule demonstrate “good cause” and obtain the court’s consent to the modification. The Trustee established good cause in this case for an extension of time to conduct depositions, and for either side to file dispositive motions.)
In re RML Development, Inc., 528 B.R. 150 (Bankr. W.D. Tenn. 2014) (Bankruptcy Court should not modify or deny an 11 U.S.C. § 363(k) credit bid when equitable concerns give it cause. Such a modification or denial of credit bid rights should be the extraordinary exception and not the norm. Under facts and circumstances of the case, sufficient cause existed under Section 363(k) to modify the creditor’s credit bid rights.)
In re Madison Williams & Company, LLC, 214 Bankr. LEXIS 50 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2014) (Nonparty witnesses were not entitled to a protective order with respect to the scope of the discovery sought from the witnesses as part of the chapter 7 Trustee’s Federal Bankruptcy Rule 2004 examination because the scope of the information sought was properly within the scope of the Trustee’s duties.)
Messer v. Peykar International Co. (In re Fine Diamonds, LLC), 501 B.R. 230 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2013) (Bankruptcy Court decided to order, on its own motion, the opening of an adversary proceeding in the District Court for review of the Bankruptcy Court’s proposed findings because Federal Rule Bankruptcy Procedure 9033 did not address what parties should do if they had no objections to the Court’s proposed findings but still wanted entry of a judgment by the District Court.)
In re Bellafiore, 492 B.R. 109 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2013) (Debtor was entitled to claim a homestead exemption with respect to proceeds arising from sale of his real property pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 522(b)(3), and why Deb. & Cred. lost Section 282 and CPLR 5206(a) because debtor owned and occupied the property on a regular basis for some time and it was his permit residence as of the petition date.)
Barnard, Esq., as Trustee v. Joffe, et al. (In re Inflight Newspapers, Inc.), 423 B. R. 6 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2010) (Where the defendant insider of the Debtor had exercised his United States Constitutional Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination during discovery, the Court disallowed his affidavit submitted in support of his memorandum on summary judgment, although the burden of proof on summary judgment was not altered.
Cooperstown Capital, LLC v. Patton, et al., 60 A.D. 3d 1251 (Supreme Court Appellate Division 3rd Department 2009) (Temporary injunction under CPLR 6301 enjoining LLCs and individual owners from collecting capital calls made to member or impairing members rights for not paying was proper because, inter alia, based on operating agreements, it was at least likely that the member would have succeeded in proving the proprietary of capital called made only to member.)
In re Candidus, 327 B.R. 112 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2005) (Court rejected the Debtor’s request to authorize commencement of adversary proceeding to determine the dischargeability of certain debt. Requested relief was precluded by Rooker-Feldman doctrine where the State Court required jurisdiction over whether the debt was discharged when the Debtor raised discharge order as affirmative defense in State Court action.)
Bank of America, N.A. v. New York Merchants Protective Co., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94634 (EDNY 2012)
Chiquita Fresh N. America, LLC v. Long Island Banana Corp. (In re Long Island Banana Corp.), 198 F. Supp. 3d 171 (E.D.N.Y. 2016)
Chiquita Fresh North America, LLC v. Long Island Banana Corp., 22 F. Supp. 3d 340 (E.D.N.Y. 2014)
Friedman, Esq. v. Wayne Wahrsager, et al., 848 F. Supp. 2d 278 (E.D.N.Y. 2012)
