1250 Broadway, 27th Floor New York, NY 10001

Cases of Interest

  • OvaScience, Inc. Derivative Litigation - Important Settlement Information June 12, 2018

    On June 4, 2018, the parties in the action Fulton v. Dipp, et al. (OvaScience Derivative Litigation), Index. No. 1:17-cv-0869, filed a Stipulation of Compromise and Settlement (the “Settlement”) [CLICK HERE TO VIEW SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT], which sets forth the terms and conditions for the proposed settlement and dismissal with prejudice of the action, subject to review and approval by the United States District Court for the District of Delaware pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P 23.1 and upon notice of the current stockholders of OvaScience, Inc. (“OvaScience” or the “Company”) [CLICK HERE TO VIEW NOTICE].

    On June 6, 2018, the Hon. Robert D. Mariani, of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (sitting by designation), entered a scheduling order which set a date to consider approval of the Settlement (the “Settlement Hearing”), which shall be held on August 30, 2018, at 11:00 AM in the United States Courthouse, 235 N. Washington Ave., Scranton, Pennsylvania. At the Settlement Hearing, the Court will: (a) determine whether the proposed Settlement, on the terms and conditions provided for in the Settlement Agreement, is fair, reasonable, and adequate and in the best interests of OvaScience and its current stockholders; (b) determine whether the Court should finally approve the Settlement and enter the Order and Final Judgment as provided in the Settlement, dismissing the Action with prejudice and extinguishing and releasing the Released Claims; (c) hear and determine any objections to the proposed Settlement; (d) determine whether the Court should approve Plaintiff’s Fee and Expense Application; and (e) rule on such other matters as the Court may deem appropriate. [CLICK HERE TO VIEW SCHEDULING ORDER].

    OvaScience shareholders with questions about the Settlement should contact Newman Ferrara partner Jeffrey M. Norton at (212) 619-5400 or by email at jnorton@nfllp.com.

    Read More
  • Clovis Oncology Derivative Litigation -Important Settlement Information- February 26, 2018

    On February 26, 2018, the parties in the action Solak v. Barrett, et al. (Clovis Derivative Litigation), CA No. 2017-0362-JRS, filed a Stipulation of Compromise and Settlement (the “Settlement”) [CLICK HERE TO VIEW SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT], which sets forth the terms and conditions for the proposed settlement and dismissal with prejudice of the action, subject to review and approval by the Court pursuant to Court of Chancery Rule 23.1 and upon notice of

    the current stockholders of Clovis Oncology, Inc. (“Clovis” or the “Company”) [CLICK HERE TO VIEW NOTICE].

    On March 9, 2018, Vice Chancelor Slights of the Delaware Court of Chancery entered a scheduling order which set a date to consider approval of the Settlement (the “Settlement Hearing”), which shall be held on May 30, 2018, at 2:00 p.m., in the Court of Chancery, Leonard L. Williams Justice Center, 500 North King Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19801. At the Settlement Hearing, the Court will: (a) determine whether the proposed Settlement, on the terms and conditions provided for in the Settlement Agreement, is fair, reasonable, and adequate and in the best interests of Clovis and its current stockholders; (b) determine whether the Court should finally approve the Settlement and enter the Order and Final Judgment as provided in the Settlement, dismissing the Action with prejudice and extinguishing and releasing the Released Claims; (c) hear and determine any objections to the proposed Settlement; (d) determine whether the Court should approve Plaintiff’s Fee and Expense Application; and (e) rule on such other matters as the Court may deem appropriate. [CLICK HERE TO VIEW SCHEDULING ORDER].

    Clovis shareholders with questions about the Settlement should contact Newman Ferrara partner Jeffrey M. Norton at (212) 619-5400 or by email at jnorton@nfllp.com.

    Read More
  • Romain et al., v. Seabrook et al. (COBA) May 17, 2017

    SIGN THE PETITION SUPPORTING THIS ACTION BY CLICKING HERE

    Together with the Seelig Law Offices, Newman Ferrara represents current and former members of the Correction Officers' Benevolent Association ("COBA") who have brought this action derivatively on behalf of the COBA General Fund and the COBA Annuity Fund -- two investment funds overseen by the COBA Executive Board of Directors ("COBA Executive Board") -- against the members of the COBA Executive Board and COBA's former president, Norman Seabrook.

    In sum, the Complaint alleges that Seabrook and the COBA Executive Board breached their fiduciary duty to properly oversee and manage the COBA plans for the benefit of COBA's members which resulted in the loss of tens of millions of dollars of plan assets.

    In addition, the complaint charges that Seabrook, who has been indicted for taking kick-backs, conspired with others, including the principals of the now-disgraced hedge fund Platinum Partners, to invest tens of millions of COBA's assets in what appears to be a Ponzi scheme run by Platinum Partners.

    Despite the massive damage done to COBA by Seabrooks's criminal conduct, COBA's Executive Board continues to pay Mr. Seabrook's criminal defense costs using COBA funds. In fact, despite demands and even a preliminary injunction motion made to prevent those paymets, the COBA Executive Board refuses to cease covering those costs.

    The complaint charges defendants with violations of the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) as well as various state law claims.

    Those seeking a copy of the complaint can download it above. Those looking for more information about this case may contact attorneys Jeffrey Norton at (212) 619-5400 or Phil Seelig at (212) 766-0600.

    Newman Ferrara maintains a diverse New York practice with attorneys specializing in complex commercial and multi-party litigation with an emphasis on securities and shareholder litigation, consumer protection, civil rights, and real estate. For more information, please visit the firm website at www.nfllp.com.

    Seelig Law Offices is a full-service New York City law firm assisting clients with an array of services, including Social Security disability, disability pensions, civil service matters, discrimination matters, personal injury, and employment law. For more information, please visit the firm website at www.pseeliglaw.com.

    Read More
  • Invicta Pro Diver Watch Product Defect Case November 22, 2016

    Newman Ferrara Files Class Action Against Invicta Watch Company of America, Inc. for Marketing and Selling Defective "Pro Diver" Watches That Lack Water Resistance

    NEW YORK, November 23, 2016 (BUSINESS WIRE) – Newman Ferrara LLP announced today that the firm filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida against Invicta Watch Company of America, Inc. ("Invicta") on behalf of purchasers of the Invicta Pro Diver Series Watches ("Pro Diver Watches"). The action, entitled Felice v. Invicta Watch Company of America, Inc., 16-cv-62772-RLR, alleges violations of the Magnuson-Moss Act, a federal product warranty statute, as well as claims under Florida's deceptive practices and false adverting laws, and common law claims for breach of express warranty.

    Invicta, one of the world's largest watch manufacturers, markets and sells the Pro Diver Watches both directly and indirectly through numerous retail partners. The Pro Diver Watches, which sell for between $75 and $250, are advertised as water sports watches, suitable for diving and serious water activity, with various models purporting to have water resistance from depths of 50 meters to 300 meters (i.e., 165 to 984 feet). In truth, the Pro Diver Watches are prone to leakage at any depth and in connection with non-marine activities where the product is exposed to water. Pro Diver Watches regularly experience condensation under the watch crystal and malfunction due to exposure to moisture. Despite years of complaints and negative product reviews by purchasers of the Pro Diver Watches who experienced this particular defect, Invicta has taken no steps to remedy the problem. This lawsuit seeks to address that failure.

    Any one who purchased or owns a Pro Diver Watch and experienced a lack of water resistance may contact Newman Ferrara attorneys Jeffrey Norton (jnorton@nfllp.com) or Roger Sachar (rsachar@nfllp.com) to obtain information about this case or learn more about their rights.

    Newman Ferrara maintains a multifaceted practice based in New York City with attorneys specializing in complex commercial and multi-party litigation, securities fraud and shareholder litigation, consumer protection, civil rights, and real estate. For more information, please visit the firm website at www.nfllp.com.

    CONTACT:

    Newman Ferrara LLP
    Jeffrey M. Norton
    1250 Broadway, 27th Fl.
    New York, NY 10001
    Tel: (212) 619-5400

    Read More
  • Kuchma v. The City of New York, et al. May 29, 2016

    The firm represents Justin Kuchma, who was physically and sexually abused by a correction officer on May 29, 2016, while awaiting trial at Rikers Island. Mr. Kuchma protested the use of a racial slur used by the correction officer directed at another inmate. The officer retaliated against Mr. Kuchma by sexually assaulting and beating him, while using homosexual slurs, in the presence of other correction officers and a supervisor. Mr. Kuchma sustained several contusions as a result, and also suffers varying psychological effects from the incident. The lawsuit names the City of New York and five correction officers.

    Press:

    NBC 4 New York, Rikers Guard Under Investigation Over Sex Assault Allegation, Facebook Posts, published August 16, 2016 http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Rikers-Island-New-York-City-NYC-Guard-Accused-of-Sex-Assault-Facebook-Posts-390343251.html

    ABC 7 New York, Rikers inmate alleges correction officer sex abuse, published June 30, 2016: http://abc7ny.com/news/investigators-exclusive-rikers-inmate-alleges-guard-sex-abuse/1405543/

    NY Post, Inmate says Rikers guard sexually assaulted him while others watched, published June 29, 2016: http://nypost.com/2016/06/29/inmate-says-rikers-guard-sexually-assaulted-him-while-others-watched/

    Gothamist, Rikers Inmate Says A Guard Sexually Assaulted Him After He Objected To Racial Slur, published June 29, 2016: http://gothamist.com/2016/06/29/rikers_sexual_assault_lawsuit.php

    NY Daily News, New York City inmate claims jail guard grabbed his crotch as payback for verbal dispute, plans to sue for $6M, published June 28, 2016: http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-inmate-plans-sue-6m-crotch-grabbing-incident-article-1.2691973

    Read More
  • Lennen v. Marriott Ownership Resorts, Inc., et al. May 20, 2016

    UPDATE: Amended Complaint filed on October 25, 2017. Available for download.

    This class action, filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida (Lennen v. Marriott Ownership Resorts, Inc., et al., 6:16-cv-0855), was filed on behalf of purchasers of Marriott timeshare interests in Marriott's points-based Marriott Vacation Club program (the "MVC Product") and owners of Marriott's tradtional week-to-week timeshares ("Legacy Timeshares").

    In sum, the action involves allegations that Defendants, through a series of convoluted and patently illegal transactions, engaged (and continue to engage) in a scheme to convey illusory real property ownership interests to purchasers of the MVC Product. While purchase of the MVC Product is said to convey both title to a Florida timeshare estate and a beneficial interest in a Florida land trust, it, in fact, conveys neither. In reality, the MVC Product conveys to its purchasers nothing more than a simple awards program prodiving access to selected Marriott-owned timeshares throughout the country. The purpose of packaging the MVC Product as a real estate transaction is simple: the product provides significant opportunities for revenue that would not otherwise exist in connection with an awards program of this nature or even, for that matter, with the sale of Legacy Timeshares of the type Marriott has sold for decades.

    The Complaint names as defendants Marriott Ownership Resorts, Inc., Marriott Vacations Worldwide Corporation, d/b/a Marriott Vacation Club, Marriott Resorts Travel Company, Inc., d/b/a MVC Exchange Company (collectively, "Marriott," unless identified specifically), Marriott Title Insurance, MVC Owners Association, First American Financial, First American Trust, FSB, First American Title Company (collectively, "First American"), Orange County Florida, and Orange County Comptroller, Martha O. Haynie (collectively "Defendants"), for claims including violations of the Florida Vacation and Timeshare Act, § 721.01, Fla. Stats., et seq., the Florida Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act ("Florida RICO"), § 895.01, et seq., for common law claims of negligence and breach of fiduciary duty, and for declaratory and injunctive relief.

    While Marriott, First American, and others have profited greatly from sales of the MVC Product, purchasers of the MVC Product continue to suffer the consequences of the deception. For one, MVC Owners are deprived of any of the benefits of real-property ownership while shouldering all the burdens, costs, and fees as if they had such title. Moreover, purchasers continue to suffer harm as a result of Marriott's opaque and discretionary point-valuation process, which results in significant dilution and lacks any reliable metric for tracking their so-called beneficial interests, as well as Marriott's unfettered process of adding and restricting access to properties in the underlying land trust.

    Finally, as Defendants continue to exploit and profit from the MVC Product owners of Legacy Timeshares aslo suffer due to continued and increasing interference with their and actual ownership interests and Marriott's unlawful exchange and reservation procedures that restrict their ability to use and enjoy their ownership rights.

    Plaintiffs in this action are purchasers of both the MVC Product and owners of Legacy Timeshares. They are represented by Newman Ferrara LLP, Soomi Kim, Esq., and the Polaszek Law Firm, PLLC.

    CONTACT:

    Newman Ferrara LLP
    Jeffrey M. Norton
    jnorton@nfllp.com
    1250 Broadway, 27th Fl.
    New York, NY 10001
    Tel: (212) 619-5400

    Read More
  • Plazza v. Airbnb, Inc. February 11, 2016

    On February 11, 2016, Newman Ferrara filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Airbnb, Inc. ("Airbnb" or the "Company) for violations of New York law. The lawsuit, entitled Plazza v. Airbnb, Inc., 16-cv-01085, alleges that Airbnb has engaged and continues to engage in illegal real estate broker transactions in violation of Sec. 440 of New York Real Property Law (NYRPL) as well as Sec. 349 of New York General Business Law.

    Through its website, www.airbnb.com, Airbnb lists and advertises property available for rent in New York (and other cities around the world), facilitates the rental transactions, including procuring the rental agreements and processing rental payments, and takes fees and/or commissions for its services. NYRPL Sec. 440 unambiguously requires individuals and entities who engage in these activities to maintain a New York State-issued real estate broker's license. Nevertheless, Airbnb does not presently and has never had such a license. Consequently, the fees and commissions the Company has charged are illegal.

    If you paid any fee, commission, or rent to any website providing access to short-term and vacation rentals in New York, including airbnb.com, vrbo.com, homeaway.com, roomarama.com, or some other short-term/vacation rental website, you may contact us to inquire about your rights or our ongoing investigation regarding these online rental services.

    The attorneys handling this matter are Lucas A. Ferrara (lferrara@nfllp.com), Jeffrey Norton (jnorton@nfllp.com) and Danielle Sullivan (dsullivan@nfllp.com).

    Read More
  • Quest Diagnostics Privacy Breach November 16, 2015

    On November 16, 2015, the firm filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Quest Diagnostics, Inc. ("Quest") and others for their role in a massive breach of patient privacy.

    The lawsuit, entitled Jane Doe v. Quest Diagnostics, Inc., et al., 15-cv-8992 (LGS), alleges that, for as long as a year, hundreds of medical records, containing the personal and protected data of patients in and around the New York area, were being transmitted to a Brooklyn-based marketing firm – rather than to Quest, the intended recipient. Although Quest was alerted early on to the breach, the company did nothing to prevent the continued transmissions, failed to alert medical providers and patients, and failed to report the breach to authorities. As a result, the personal and sensitive medical information of hundreds of patients was disclosed to unauthorized third-parties, putting their security and privacy at great risk.

    Under both federal and state law, it is a violation of law to send protected medical data to unauthorized third-parties. When breaches are discovered, medical service providers such as Quest are required to provide immediate notice to individuals affected. Entities are also required to report such breaches to the Department of Health and Human Services, notify other providers affected or involved in the breach, and alert major media outlets when greater than 500 people are affected. In this case, Quest did nothing.

    "That Quest was on notice of this massive data breach for perhaps a year or more, and yet failed to take any responsible or required action, amounts to an egregious dereliction of duty," stated firm partner, Jeffrey Norton. "Through this lawsuit, we intend to make sure something like this does not occur again."

    Just a day after this action was filed, on November 17, 2015, NBC news investigative reporter Pei-Sze Cheng ran a story covering the massive data breach. A link to that story is provided here: http://www.nbcnewyork.com/investigations/Medical-Records-Mix-up-Investigation-Doctor-Privacy-351060331.html.

    Read More
  • Blatt v. City of New York, et al. April 18, 2015

    The firm represented seven New York City police sergeants who sat for the Promotion to Lieutenant's exam administered by the Department of Citywide Administrative Services ("DCAS"), on April 18, 2015. The sergeants alleged that DCAS failed to provide proper notice of the subject areas that were to be tested on the exam and cited to irregularities in the administration of the exam. The parties reached an agreement where five of the six questions challenged in the lawsuit were stricken from grading. This agreement enabled a number of hard working police sergeants to become eligible for a promotion to lieutenant.

    Press:

    NY Post, NYPD sergeants, city reach agreement in exam scandal, published June 13, 2016: http://nypost.com/2016/06/13/nypd-sergeants-city-reach-agreement-in-exam-scandal/

    NY Daily News, Judge bars NYPD lieutenant promotions for a month amid test cheating allegations, published May 17, 2016: http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nypd-lieutenant-promotions-hold-test-results-challenge-article-1.2639949

    NY Daily News, Eight NYPD sergeants to file second lawsuit challenging 2015 lieutenants' exam, published May 16, 2016: http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/new-lawsuit-challenge-2015-nypd-lieutenants-exam-article-1.2637887

    Washington Times, NYPD sergeants sue over online civil service exam 'cheat sheet', published March 25, 2016: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/mar/25/nypd-sergeants-sue-over-civil-service-exam-cheat-s/

    NY Daily News, Nine sergeants sue over NYPD lieutenants' exam cheat sheet, published March 24, 2016: http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/exclusive-suit-nypd-lieutenants-exam-cheat-sheet-article-1.2575728

    Courthouse News Service, Cops Call Cheating Rampant in NYPD Promotion Test, published March 24, 2016: http://www.courthousenews.com/2016/03/24/cops-call-cheating-rampant-in-nypd-promotion-test.htm

    Gothamist, "They Know The Game": Cops Brazenly Cheated On Lieutenants' Exam, Lawsuit Alleges, published March 24, 2016: http://gothamist.com/2016/03/24/cops_cheating_no_way.php

    Read More
  • In re Gateway Plaza Residents Litigation June 13, 2014

    In re Gateway Plaza Residents' Litigation, Index No. 651023/2014

    This class action was filed on behalf of current and former Gateway Plaza residents against Marina Towers Associates, L.P., a development company and landlord owned by the LeFrak Organization, and its management company, Gateway Residential Management LLC (collectively "Defendants"). In sum, the action alleges that Defendants breached the warranty of habitability codified in New York Real Property Law § 235-b, breached the lease agreement, and were unjustly enriched as a result of uniform conditions, defects, and deterioration at the Gateway Plaza apartment complex that exposed tenants' apartments to external temperature fluctuations to an unreasonable degreee. Plaintiffs are seeking damages in the form of rent abatements, monetary loss, disgourgement, and injunctive relief.

    Gateway Plaza is a massive residential apartment complex located in Manhattan's Battery Park City. It is comprised of six, 34-story buildings, totaling 1,881,621 square feet, and 1,712 apartments. The Consolidated Class Action Complaint (the "Complaint") in this matter alleges that, as a result of various defects and conditions -- and Defendants failure to take appropriate remedial measures -- external air flows freely into the apartments exposing tenants to unreasonably cold external temperatures during the winter months and unreasonably hot temperatures during the summer months. Even with heating and cooling systems running at full capacity, apartment temperatures regularly dip below 50 degrees in the winter and can become oppressively hot in the summer. Because of these conditions, tenants are forced to employ various self-help measures in order to block air flowing through seams in aging and uninsulated window frames and the thru-wall heating systems called "PTAC" units. Tenants report using such things duct tape, plastic sheeting, towels, and pillows. Others have reported sealing off entire rooms in order to cut-down on the exorbitant electricity costs associated with maintaining a tolerable temperature. As further alleged in the Complaint, Defendants have for years ignored violations and complaints about these conditions and have even disregarded a self-commissioned energy audit identifying the same issues and recommending significant structural remedial measures be taken.

    Plaintiffs in this action are current and former tenants of Gateway Plaza. They are represented by Newman Ferrara LLP and Morgan & Morgan, P.C., who serve as Co-Lead Counsel, and Sanford Heisler Kimpel, LLP, which serves as Plaintiffs' Co-Counsel.

    CASE UPDATE: On December 4, 2015, finding Plaintiffs' allegations sufficient, the Honorable Eileen Rakower, Justice of the Supreme Court, County of New York, denied in its entirety Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint. Plaintiffs intend to aggressively pursue additional evidence in support of their claims, certification of the class, adjudication on the merits, and a favorable recovery on behalf of aggrieved Gateway Plaza tenants.

    CONTACT:

    Newman Ferrara LLP
    Jeffrey M. Norton
    jnorton@nfllp.com
    1250 Broadway, 27th Fl.
    New York, NY 10001
    Tel: (212) 619-5400

    Read More
  • Borrelli v. The City of New York, et al. April 29, 2014

    On April 29, 2014, during police officer training at Rodman's Neck, NYPD Officer Brendan Cronin attended a lunch, and then a post-training get together, with fellow police officers and trainers where he consumed alcohol at a local bar. Later that evening, while driving home, an intoxicated Mr. Cronin proceeded to stop and get out of his vehicle in Pelham, New York. Meanwhile Robert Borrelli and Joseph Felice were driving home from their hockey game and, while stopped at a red light, Mr. Cronin—for no known reason—shot 13-14 bullets into their car. Mr. Felice was shot multiple times, and Mr. Borrelli rushed his friend to the hospital, where his life was saved.

    The firm represented Robert Borrelli, Margaret Borrelli, Joseph Felice and Patricia Sclafani in lawsuits against the City of New York, Police Officer Brendan Cronin, the local bar and eight other police officers and supervisors who aided and condoned Officer Cronin's heavy drinking on the night of the tragic incident. Mr. Felice, Mr. Borrelli, and their spouses and children faced serious psychological, physical and emotional trauma from the incident. Newman Ferrara LLP successfully obtained a settlement from the City of New York, amounting to over $8 million for the two families.

    Borrelli v. The City of New York, et al.

    Felice v. The City of New York, et al.

    Press:

    NY Daily News, City to pay more than $8M settlement after drunken off-duty cop nearly kills two men, published January 27, 2017: http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/city-pay-8m-drunk-off-duty-shoots-men-article-1.2957759

    LoHud, NYPD trainers named in Pelham shooting lawsuit, published October 3, 2016: http://www.lohud.com/story/news/crime/2016/10/03/nypd-detectives-sued-pelham-shooting/91466872/

    NY Post, Two detectives added to federal suit in off-duty cop's drunken shooting, published September 29, 2016: http://nypost.com/2016/09/29/two-detectives-added-to-federal-suit-in-off-duty-cops-drunken-shooting/

    NY Daily News, Man shot by drunk cop in 2014 says NYPD's toleration of alcohol abuse enabled deadly Brooklyn car crash involving off-duty officer, published July 19, 2016: http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/man-shot-drunk-nypd-booze-culture-enabled-car-crash-article-1.2717584

    NY Daily News, Drunk cop's shooting frenzy could land NYPD bosses with lawsuit for tolerating trainee's alcoholism, published July 15, 2016: http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/nypd-bosses-face-suit-drunk-shooting-frenzy-article-1.2713555

    NY Daily News, Ex-NYPD cop who nearly killed two men when he drunkenly opened fire on their car in Westchester gets nine years, published April 13, 2016: http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/ex-nypd-years-killing-men-article-1.2599791

    LoHud, NYPD officer pleads guilty in Pelham shooting, published September 22, 2015: http://www.lohud.com/story/news/crime/2015/09/22/cronin-nypd-pelham-shooting/72606430/

    CBS New York, Court Papers: NYPD Officer Said He Drank Beer, Whiskey Before Pelham Shooting, published July 3, 2014: http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2014/07/03/nypd-officer-indicted-on-attempted-murder-other-charges-in-pelham-shooting/

    NY Post, Men shot at by drunk cop to sue city for $90M, published July 1, 2014: http://nypost.com/2014/07/01/men-shot-at-by-drunk-cop-to-sue-city-for-90m?iframe=true&theme_preview=true

    NY Daily News, Hockey players shot by drunken off-duty NYPD cop plan $90 million lawsuit, published July 1, 2014: http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/men-shot-drunken-off-duty-sue-90-million-article-1.1850924

    NY Daily News, Drunk NYPD cop's shooting victim saved by heroic hockey teammate: friend, published May 1, 2014: http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/drunk-shooting-victim-saved-hockey-teammate-article-1.1775996

    Read More
  • In The Times: On New Kitchen Counters February 06, 2014

    Posted on Feb 10, 2014 1:00pm EST by Newman Ferrara LLP

    Real Estate Q & A

    By Ronda Kaysen

    The New York Times

    Published: February 6, 2014

    Counter Situation

    Q.When I moved into my rent-controlled apartment nearly 50 years ago, I paid for kitchen upgrades. Today the Formica counter, which I paid for, is worn and discolored. The landlord's agent won't allow me to replace it without raising my rent. Is that how the law reads?

    Upper West Side, Manhattan

    A. After 50 years, I can only imagine how worn these Formica countertops look. It certainly seems reasonable to want a fresh look. But as long as the countertops aren't broken or defective, the landlord isn't required to replace them, according to Lucas A. Ferrara, a real estate lawyer.

    New countertops would be considered an apartment improvement, which means the landlord can raise your monthly rent by 1/60th or 1/40th of the cost, depending on the size of your building. So if the new counters and the installation totaled $2,000, the landlord could raise your rent by as much as $50 a month. The rent increase is permanent, long after that $2,000 is paid off and those new counters have lost their luster. (The website for the state Division of Housing and Community Renewal has information on renter's rights.)

    Tempting as it might be, resist the urge to do the work yourself. You risk eviction if your lease prohibits you from making modifications without written consent. And even if you are allowed to do the work, it opens you up to serious liability if anything goes wrong. Ask the landlord to give you an estimate for how much the work will cost. Once you have a firm number, then you can decide if the rent increase is worth the joy of new Formica.

    Read More
  • Vu Tran v. Blackberry Limited, et. al, Newman Ferrara LLP Files Securities Class Action Against BlackBerry Limited (NASDAQ: BBRY) and Advises Investors of December 3, 2013 Lead Plaintiff Deadline November 08, 2013

    Newman Ferrara LLP announces that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the Unites States District Court, Southern District of New York against BlackBerry Limited (NASDAQ: BBRY) ("BlackBerry" or the "Company") and certain of its executive officers, alleging violations of federal securities laws. The case is entitled, Vu Tran v. Blackberry Limited, et al, 13 CIV 7972 (SDNY).

    Investors who purchased BlackBerry securities between September 27, 2012 and September 20, 2013 (the "Class Period") may apply with the Court to be appointed Lead Plaintiff no later than December 3, 2013. The Lead Plaintiff will direct the litigation on behalf of the other class members.

    As alleged in Newman Ferrara's Complaint, BlackBerry and certain of its officers made a series of materially false and misleading statements and omissions related to the Company's business and operations in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. In particular, it is alleged that BlackBerry actively misled investors about the success and financial prospects of its new BlackBerry 10 line of smart phones and claimed falsely that the line would herald in the Company's financial recovery. However, unbeknownst to investors, the introduction and poor market reception of the BlackBerry 10 line was actually further hurting the Company's business, operations and financial situation.

    On September 20, 2013, BlackBerry admitted finally that it would incur massive charges due to unsold BlackBerry 10 inventory. According to the Company's release:

    "[BlackBerry] expects to report a primarily non-cash, pre-tax charge against inventory and supply commitments in the second quarter of approximately $930 million to $960 million, which is primarily attributable to BlackBerry Z10 devices."

    To make matters worse, the Company further announced it is preparing for deep staff cuts of up to 40% of its employees by year end.

    As a result of these disclosures, BlackBerry stock plummeted from a closing price of $10.52 per share on September 19, 2013, to a close of $8.73 per share on September 20, 2013. Thereafter, BlackBerry shares continued to slide on heavy trading volume as investors liquidated their positions.

    Investors who purchased shares of BlackBerry during the Class Period may contact Newman Ferrara partner Jeffrey M. Norton (jnorton@nfllp.com) by email or call (212) 619-5400 to discuss this lawsuit or the Lead Plaintiff process.

    Whistleblowers: Persons with knowledge that may aid in the investigation of this matter are encouraged to contact the firm. Under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Bill, whistleblowers are protected from employer retaliation and may be entitled to as much as 30 percent of the recovery if the information provided leads to a successful action.

    Newman Ferrara maintains a multifaceted practice based in New York City with attorneys specializing in complex commercial and multi-party litigation, securities fraud and shareholder litigation, consumer protection, civil rights, and real estate. For more information, please visit the firm website at www.nfllp.com.

    CONTACT:

    Newman Ferrara LLP

    Jeffrey M. Norton

    1250 Broadway, 27th Fl.

    New York, NY 10001

    Tel: (212) 619-5400

    Read More
  • Bah v. City of New York, et al. September 23, 2013

    The firm represents the Estate of Mohamed Bah, who was fatally shot in his home by NYPD officers on September 25, 2012. The actions leading up to Bah's death began when Bah's mother Hawa, who was visiting from Guinea, grew concerned that her son was seriously depressed after he acted uncharacteristically, including canceling plans to celebrate his upcoming birthday. On the evening of the 25th, she arrived at her son's building and called 911 requesting assistance to get him treatment.

    Instead, police officers arrived. Mrs. Bah asked for the officers to leave because no crime was in progress, but they refused, and attempted to force their way into Bah's apartment. Bah had no idea that the officers had arrived in response to a call by his mother, nor did he know she was nearby, as her requests to speak with him and de-escalate the situation were denied. Officers also ignored Bah's demands to leave him alone.

    After several more officers arrived with their guns drawn, they entered Bah's apartment. Within an hour of Bah's mother's request for medical assistance, Bah was dead. He was shot at least 8 times.

    On September 23, 2013, the Bah Estate filed a federal civil rights lawsuit in federal court in Manhattan against the City of New York. The lawsuit seeks an injunction that requires the NYPD to implement new protocols for dealing with emotionally disturbed persons as well as unspecified compensatory and punitive damages.

    NY Daily News Lawyers for the family of a mentally disturbed man shot dead by police want a judge to sanction the NYPD for allegedly destroying evidence, published June 27, 2017: http://www.nyrealestatelawblog.com/Manhattan-Litigation-Blog/2017/June/WANT-TO-PENALIZE-THE-NYPD.aspx

    NY Daily News Judge to rule on cops who shot, killed mentally ill Harlem man in 2012, published January 31, 2017: http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/manhattan/judge-rule-cops-shot-killed-mentally-ill-man-2012-article-1.2960804

    Newsday, Civil rights charges urged in NYPD killing of Mohamed Bah, published July 22, 2016: http://www.newsday.com/news/new-york/civil-rights-charges-urged-in-nypd-killing-of-mohamed-bah-1.12076054

    NY Post, Feds reviewing case of mentally ill man shot by cops, published July 21, 2016: http://nypost.com/2016/07/21/feds-reviewing-case-of-mentally-ill-man-shot-by-cops/

    NY Daily News, Family of Mohamed Bah becomes impatient with Department of Justice inquiry into his killing by NYPD, published July 21, 2016: http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/family-metally-ill-man-slain-nypd-impatient-doj-probe-article-1.2720787

    Gothamist, Police Violated NYPD Protocol In Killing Of Mentally Unstable Man, New Documents Reveal, published July 6, 2016: http://gothamist.com/2016/07/06/mohamed_bah.php

    NY Post, Court docs show cops broke NYPD rules in 2012 fatal shooting, published July 6, 2016: http://nypost.com/2016/07/06/court-docs-show-cops-broke-nypd-rules-in-2012-fatal-shooting/

    NY Daily News, NYPD cop gets light penalty for taking action against armed mentally ill man without seeking authorization, published July 5, 2016: http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nypd-light-penalty-2012-attack-mentally-ill-man-article-1.2700445

    Yonkers Tribune, Estate of Mohamed Bah Files Motion to Sanction NYC for Destruction of Evidence in Civil Rights Lawsuit Arising from Police Involved Shooting, published April 26, 2016: http://www.yonkerstribune.com/2016/04/estate-of-mohamed-bah-files-motion-to-sanction-nyc-for-destruction-of-evidence-in-civil-rights-lawsuit-arising-from-police-involved-shooting

    NY Daily News, Cop's 'knife injury' pic provided by city in lawsuit over NYPD shooting of mentally ill man, published March 28, 2016: http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/knife-injury-led-nypd-shooting-mentally-ill-man-article-1.2579612

    Washington Post, Did New York police lie about the death of Mohamed Bah?, published November 3, 2015: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/did-new-york-police-lie-about-the-death-of-mohamed-bah/2015/11/02/d0067564-6b93-11e5-9bfe-e59f5e244f92_story.html

    Huffington Post, NYPD Killing Of Mohamed Bah Was 'An Execution And A Cover-Up:' Lawyers, published October 7, 2015

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mohamed-bah-nypd_us_561545e0e4b0fad1591a4f27

    NY Post, Man whom NYPD shot dead was no threat: judge, published May 1, 2014: http://nypost.com/2014/05/01/man-who-nypd-shot-dead-was-not-a-threat-to-anyone-judge/

    Read More
  • Edmans v. Hurt, et al. Preliminary Approval of Settlement Announced In Shareholder Derivative Action Against the Board of Directors of Bazaarvoice, Inc. March 12, 2013

    Newman Ferrara LLP announced today that on September 23, 2014, in the matter entitled, Edmans v. Hurt et al., Case No. D-1-GN-13-000874 (the "Action"), the Texas State District Court for Travis County, Texas entered an “Order Preliminarily Approving Settlement of Shareholder Derivative Action and Providing for Notice" (the "Order").

    The Action, which was brought against certain officers and directors of Bazaarvoice, Inc. (the “Company”) and against the Company as nominal defendant, alleged causes of action for, inter alia, breaches of fiduciary duty in connection with the Company's acquisition of PowerReviews.

    Pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement and Order, a copy the Notice of Proposed Settlement, Final Hearing on Proposed Settlement, and Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses (the “Notice”) can be downloaded here:

    NOTICE

    Additional documents available for download:

    SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

    PRELIMINARY APPROVAL ORDER

    CONTACT:
    Jeffrey Norton
    jnorton@nfllp.com
    Tel: (212) 619-5400
    Fax: (212) 619-3090

    Read More