Joseph S. Maniscalco

Joseph S. Maniscalco

T: 516.826.6500 x218

JOSEPH S. MANISCALCO is a partner and co-founder of LH&M. With almost 30 years of experience, Joseph has acted as lead counsel to businesses, creditors, landlords, debtors, trustees and others in bankruptcy and non-bankruptcy cases. Joseph regularly litigates commercial issues, including actions involving shareholder disputes, real estate, claims for breach of contract and other business litigation matters. He is a seasoned trial lawyer and has a keen understanding of litigation practice and procedure. Joseph has been engaged as a bankruptcy expert many times, including on behalf of the Office of the Inspector General. He is a mediator, has served as a plan administrator and is approved to act as a receiver and/or counsel in Nassau and Suffolk counties.

Joseph earned his law degree from Hofstra University School of Law in 1995, where he served as a legal advocate for the Unemployment Action Center representing indigent clients in actions seeking unemployment benefits. During law school, Joseph interned for the United States Department of Justice, Office of the United States Trustee, Eastern District of New York. Joseph was also awarded First Place in the 1995 New York State Bar Association Environmental Law Essay Contest.


  • J.D., Hofstra University School of Law, 1995
  • B.A., Fordham University, 1992
  • Chaminade High School, 1988

Bar Admissions

  • Courts of the State of New York
  • United States District Courts for the Eastern and Southern Districts of New York
  • United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan

Honors & Affiliations

  • Former Chairman of the Nassau County Bar Association Bankruptcy Committee
  • Director of the Credit Abuse Resistance Education (CARE) program
  • Certified mediator/member of the panel of mediators for the Eastern & Southern District of New York
  • Frequent speaker at continuing legal education seminars and events
  • First Place in the 1995 New York State Bar Association Environmental Law Essay Contest

Athletic Honors & Affiliations

  • Third Degree Brown Belt in the Martial Arts and instructor
  • Baseball pitching instructor and clinical director
  • Pre-Season Baseball All American Fordham University, 1992
  • Nominated to the 1992 U.S. Olympic Baseball Team
  • Recipient of Full Athletic Scholarship at Fordham University
  • Certified Mental Training Coach

Professional Associations & Memberships

  • Nassau County Bar Association
  • New York State Bar Association
  • American Bankruptcy Institute
  • National Association of Bankruptcy Trustees
  • Turnaround Management Association, Long Island Chapter
  • Columbian Lawyers of Nassau County
  • American Trial Lawyers’ Association
  • First Degree Knight, Bellmore Knights of Columbus


Joseph has served as a receiver and plan administrator in numerous cases in the Eastern District of New York.

Joseph has been retained as an expert many times in bankruptcy related cases and for the Office of the Inspector General, State of New York on bankruptcy crimes.

Joseph was awarded an AV Rating, the highest for attorneys, for his professionalism and the quality of his legal work from Martindale Hubbell, the premier directory of legal professionals.

The Long Island Pulse named Joseph as one of the Top Legal Eagles on Long Island.

2019 AV Preeminent - Martindale-Hubbell

AV®, AV Preeminent®, Martindale-Hubbell Distinguished and Martindale-Hubbell Notable are certification marks used under license in accordance with the Martindale-Hubbell certification procedures, standards and policies. Martindale-Hubbell® is the facilitator of a peer review rating process. Ratings reflect the anonymous opinions of members of the bar and the judiciary. Martindale-Hubbell® Peer Review Rating™ fall into two categories – legal ability and general ethical standards.

Key Legal Accomplishments

  • Martindale-Hubbell AV Peer Review Rated (2007 – 2023)
  • Retained as special litigation counsel in one of the largest Ponzi scheme cases ($100 million) in the Eastern District of New York (In re Gregory N. Altieri), involving hundreds of victims from the NYPD and FDNY, prosecuted dozens of litigations, and successfully recovered over $25 million for the victims
  • Represented the Chapter 7 Trustee in a $700 million Ponzi scheme in the Southern District of New York (In re Marc S. Dreier), and worked closely with the U.S. Attorney’s Office to recover money for creditors
  • Retained as lead counsel in numerous complex business transactions involving Ponzi schemes and pursuing money for the benefit of creditors
  • Appointed as Plan Administrator of Alrose King David, LLC (relating to the Allegria Hotel in Long Beach, New York), and negotiated a $2 million settlement for the subcontractors
  • Acted as lead counsel to East Harlem Property Holdings, LP in the restructuring of over 1,200 residential apartment units int he City of New York through 47 buildings and over $250 million in debt
  • Represented the Committe of Unsecured creditors in a bankruptcy case involving complex securities litigation with stockbrokers who peddled bad stocks (In re Elias Tacher), assisted the U.S. Attorney in the successful prosecution of over 12 stockbrokers, and recovered in excess of $7 million
  • Represented the Chapter 7 Trustee of the estate of Tradewell, Inc., pursued claims against the debtor’s former principals for corporate waste, greed and defalcation, and recovered over $6 million dollars for creditors
  • Represented corporation in multi-state buyout of shareholder’s interest and real estate

Publications & Activities

  • At the Crossroads of Environmental Laws and the Bankruptcy Code: Abandonment and Trustee Personal Liability, Hofstra Law Review, Volume 23:4 (1995) (author)
  • Speaker, Practical Skills – Collections and Enforcement of Money Judgments, Nassau County Bar Association (2005)
  • Speaker, Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005, New York State Bar Association (2005), Suffolk County Bar Association (2006)
  • Speaker, Bankruptcy Judges’ Roundtable, Nassau County Bar Association (2005, 2006)
  • Speaker, Insider’s Perspective to Bankruptcy, Suffolk County Bar Association (2006)
  • Certificate of Appreciation, Pro Bono Service, Eastern District of New York (2006-2008)
  • Lecturer and co-adjunct professor at St. John’s University School of Law LLM program about Bankruptcy Rules and Procedures (2007-2013)
  • Volunteer Lawyers Project assisting homeowners in foreclosure, Nassau County Bar Association (2010-2013)
  • Recent Amendments to New York’s Exemption Laws, Nassau Lawyer (Apr. 2011) (author)
  • At the Crossroads of Bankruptcy Discharge and Homeowner Association Fees: The Intended Consequences Jeopardize a Discharge, Nassau Lawyer (Feb. 2013) (author)
  • Speaker and Director, Credit Abuse Resistance Education (CARE). Lecturer and director of CARE program educating high school students about credit card abuse.

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)

  • LH&M is considered a debt relief agency.
    LH&M helps people file for bankruptcy relief under the Bankruptcy Code.

    Attorney advertisement. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.