The Attempt to Stop a 154-Million Dollar Construction Project
Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. received a call from a very large clients that an adversary was filing an emergency action the next day at State Supreme Court. Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. had a guess as to the claim but no papers or threats in our hands to defend against. Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. began defending what it thought would be the best case they could bring. Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. did not want to show up in court without a counter argument especially since it knew that the adversary wanted to shut down a development site where a 154-million dollar project and a threat of losing 50 million dollars at foreclosure was at risk. Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. was told the importance of winning the case and the risk of losing everything if a temporary restraining order was signed and work had to be ceased.
Besides fighting a case without papers, the adversary began a barrage of unethical behavior. He failed to show up in court at the time stated in the letter. He had previously represented Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C.’s client on the same project and the same units and property being disputed. He would not send Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. a copy of his papers to stop the project. Late Friday night without the firm’s participation, he tricked a judge into signing a temporary restraining order to last the weekend.
But these antics backfired as the judge required that he file the papers. This gave Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. the opportunity to spend the weekend mounting the defense. Walking out of the court house on Friday (where the adversary had failed to show) on the steps of 60 Centre Street, the owner of the company told Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. that he wanted “scorched earth” referring to a military strategy. The firm formed a team and that became its theme. Throughout the day Saturday, Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. participated in conference calls and began to prepare. At 6pm Adam Leitman Bailey had a conference call with the team and prepared for a conference call with the client. At 10:15 the conference calls were over, and the firm had a plan to avoid the shutdown of the job on Monday morning.
For Monday morning’s court appearance, Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. knew it needed to get the law and the facts on its side. The adversary was suing to stop the building of the commercial space because she claimed she purchased on the third floor in reliance upon representations that the commercial space would be no more than two stories. She claimed that nothing in the offering plan revealed that the commercial space would block her view outside her third floor windows. She had sued for two million dollars in money damages as a result of the loss in value of her units in addition to stopping construction so her entire view would not be blocked.
To win the injunction battle, Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. needed to show it would have a winning defense, that the plaintiff had no irreparable injury, and that the firm would be more harmed if an injunction was granted than the adversary would be if the application was denied. Because of the poor lawyering by the adversary, Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. knew if it pulled a good judge it would win on the law because a restraining order cannot be granted when an adversary seeks money damages. In addition, a review of the offering plan demonstrated that there was full disclosure that the commercial space would be two stories having an eight-foot minimum, whereas residential units such as the plaintiff’s were limited to a specific height. As far as the irreparable harm and the balancing of the equities, the commercial space was almost fully built and stopping the project would put Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. in danger of missing deadlines and defaulting on its loans resulting in a 50-million-dollar loss.
But the “aha” moment came Sunday morning. After meeting in the client’s office to get the total damages if the restraining order was signed, Adam Leitman Bailey drove to the building with the client and realized that the adversary’s windows had not been blocked. Only a very small portion of the view was blocked if the adversary looked a certain way with her face against the window. Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. got a ladder to reach almost the third floor to take panoramic pictures of the adversary’s view to show the dishonesty in her pictures and statements that made it look like she could not see out of her windows. The adversary had committed perjury and Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. was now able to prove it to a court of law.
With all of the new information, the entire team spent the day and night collecting information and drafting killer motion papers to go for victory. At 9:30 Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. appeared before the judge who took argument. Adam Leitman Bailey and Jeffrey Metz appeared for the developer. After a lengthy argument and further lies and new arguments by the adversary’s attorney, the judge decided in Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C.’s favor and the construction project was given the go ahead to proceed.
Adam Leitman Bailey and Jeffrey Metz argued the motion for Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C.