Monthly Archives: February 2023

Patron Allegedly Assaulted by Security at Lounge in Queens

This was originally published on the SGR Blog.

Were Owner/Operators Liable for Injury?

Marcos Illescas alleged in his complaint that he suffered personal injuries after he was allegedly assaulted both inside and in front of a restaurant located at 95-35 40th Road in Queens, City and State of New York. Illescas asserted causes of action for negligent hiring, retention, and supervision against Sabor Latino I, Corp., Sabor Latino Corp., Sabor Latino Events Corp., Sabor Latino Lounge, Inc. and “ABC Security Company” (a fictitious name, real name unknown).

The Sabor’s moved for an order granting summary judgment and dismissing the causes of action against them for negligent hiring, retention, and supervision. The Sabor’s contended that they did not owe Illescas a duty of care with respect to the incidents that allegedly occurred. Specifically, they argued that they were not responsible for the alleged assault because they contracted with an individual who was responsible for hiring and managing the security staff for the premises and the person that Illescas claimed assaulted him was not their employee.

Continue reading

Gallery and Sculpture Dispute Ownership of Five Limited Edition Works

This was originally posted on the SGR Blog.

ourt Parses Agreements and Arts and Cultural Affairs Law

Clean Art Works, Inc. operated the Marianne Boesky Gallery and served as the gallery representative for Diana Al-Hadid until 2019. During that time, Art Works advanced funds, such as studio rent and fabrication, and framing and crating costs, to Al-Hadid to further her career.

In 2009, Al-Hadid created a bronze sculpture fabricated in a five piece limited edition. An undated contract between Al-Hadid and Graphicstudio stated that Graphicstudio would fabricate the sculptures, three of which were numbered as 1/3, 2/3 and 3/3 and two numbered as “Artist’s Proofs” AP 1/2 and AP 2/2. The project was initiated in September 2009 and completed in February 2011.

Continue reading

Firm Charges Former Employee With Stealing Trade Secrets

This was originally posted on the SGR Blog.

Were Claims Barred by Statute of Limitations or Otherwise?

Sure, Inc., an insurance technology (insurtech) company, alleged that one of its former directors, Alex Maffeo, misappropriated Sure’s confidential trade secrets. He then used that information to start a competing business through Boost Insurance Agency USA, Inc. and Boost Insurance Agency, Inc. Sure claimed that Boost used Sure’s confidential information to unfairly compete against Sure and to “steal” Sure’s existing and prospective customers and business partners. Boost moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that it was time-barred and insufficiently pled.

Sure is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of business in Santa Monica, California. Sure alleged that Wayne Slavin formed Sure in 2014 to sell instant, in-the-moment, direct-to-consumer insurance. According to its original business model, Sure acted as an electronic insurance agent, allowing insurance companies to offer insurance and customers to purchase insurance through a mobile application powered by Sure’s groundbreaking backend software, technology, and electronic system of record. The complaint alleged that Sure developed that backend infrastructure and technology through years of research, design, programming, and testing, and through millions of dollars of investment. In mid-2016, Sure developed proprietary application interfaces (APIs) built on its software and technology to allow non-insurance companies to offer insurance through their websites. Sure alleged that the “innerworkings” of its backend system, its proprietary software, its model of providing instant insurance and related technological innovations, were all confidential trade secrets.

Continue reading

Did Producer Strike Photographer on Set of “Donovan”?

This was originally posted on the SGR Blog.

Court Addresses Viability of Battery Claim

Sherwood Martinelli alleged that, during the course of filming the show “Ray Donovan,” Liev Schreiber intentionally struck him, making contact with his person and destroying personal property. The first cause of action alleged that Showtime Networks Inc. and The Mark Gordon Company d/b/a Entertainment One failed to supervise with reasonable care, was negligent in its hiring of Schreiber, and failed to take any precautions to prevent an attack. The second cause of action alleged that he intentionally struck Martinelli and destroyed personal property.

Martinelli moved for summary judgment on the battery cause of action. He asserted that, at the time of the incident, he was lawfully on a public sidewalk on Lydecker Street, in Nyack, New York, in an area which was beyond the set. He alleged that Schreiber became infuriated with him and yelled at him to get out of his line of sight prior to shooting a scene, and that Schreiber became increasingly infuriated and then, without provocation, charged Martinelli in an aggressive and threatening manner, “while ducking and weaving, like a prize fighter, ultimately striking [him] with [his] upper body while swinging to knock [his] camera.”

Continue reading

Cyclist Injured in Central Park When Hit by Dog Playing Fetch

This was originally published on the SGR Blog.

Was Canine’s Owner Liable for Negligence or Otherwise?

Scenario: Cyclist riding in Central Park. Owner of off-leash dog playing fetch. Dog chases tennis ball into the road. Bike rider is injured in fall. Litigation ensues.

On April 25, 2019, Joan Decollibus was riding her bicycle through Central Park when a dog named Lola, owned by Barry Schimmel, ran into the bicycle lane and caused Decollibus to fall off her bike. On October 18, 2019, Decollibus sued Schimmel alleging negligence, strict liability, and violations of the City of New York Department of Parks and Recreation Leash Law. After the completion of depositions, Schimmel moved for summary judgment dismissing Decollibus’ complaint.

Continue reading

Oral Agreement to Share Proceeds of Sale of Diamonds

This was originally posted on the SGR Blog.

Court Applies UCC and GOL Statutes of Fraud

One of the threshold issues in commercial disputes is often the characterization of the transaction and/or the relief sought. As a recent case involving various claims to the proceeds of the sale of a diamond based upon an alleged oral agreement illustrates, adjudication of the nature of the case may be dispositive when it comes to the defense of the statute of frauds.

Basal Trading and Sons Ltd. alleged an oral partnership agreement with M&G Diamonds, Inc. and Roman Malakov Diamonds, LLC. According to the complaint, the partnership interest was divided equally (50%-50%) between Basal and M&G/Malakov. The partnership owned a one-third interest in a non-party partnership, which owned three diamonds. Under the agreement, three of the parties contributed one half of one third, i.e., one sixth, of the purchase price of the diamonds, and were entitled to receive one half of one third, i.e., one sixth, of the proceeds arising from the sale of any and/or all of the diamonds.

Continue reading

Restauranteurs Fight Over Remains of Business in L.A.

This was originally posted on the SGR Blog.

Court Adjudicates Who/What Killed The Fat Cow

The Court held a two-week virtual bench trial in this matter concerning a dysfunctional business relationship involving a Los Angeles restaurant, the Fat Cow LLC, that had no tie-breaking mechanism in the LLC formation documents. Rowan Seibel and Gordon Ramsey and GR US Licensing were (more or less) 50/50 owners of Fat Cow LLC. Siebel sought damages for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty.

The Court found Seibel not credible-primarily because it appeared he fabricated evidence and then compounded that fabrication by using the same evidence to lie to the Court.

Continue reading

Mountaineer Falls to Death

This was originally posted on the SGR Blog.

Was Demise an Accident or Suicide?

The brothers Levi and Benjamin Goldfarb, as beneficiaries of an insurance policy issued by Reliance Standard Insurance Company (Reliance), sued to recover under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act a $500,000 accidental death benefit because of the insured, Dr. Alexander Goldfarb’s, death while mountain climbing. Reliance sought summary judgment affirming the plan administrator’s decision to deny the “accidental death” benefit. The beneficiaries sought summary judgment, claiming that the plan administrator’s denial of the “accidental” death benefit was arbitrary and capricious. [1]

Dr. Goldfarb, an avid mountain climber, attempted to climb a dangerous mountain in Pakistan under dangerous winter conditions about which he was warned. Despite those warnings, Dr. Goldfarb insisted on climbing the mountain and went missing on January 16, 2021.

Continue reading