Mr. Wadler has been involved in many complex litigated matters on a wide range of legal issues either as lead counsel or as co-counsel. He has a high success record on appellate cases.
Among the litigated matters that he has handled that resulted in favorable court decisions are the following:
Beer Distributorship Rights and the Constitutionality of a Legislative Amendment. In Garal v. Miller Brewing Company, Mr. Wadler represented a local beer distributor whose business was put at risk when a national brewer decided to terminate the client’s long-standing exclusive distributorship rights. The New York legislature had just enacted an amendment to the laws which strengthened the rights of beer distributors but the brewer attempted to push through the termination and challenged the constitutionality of the legislative amendment. Mr. Wadler and co-counsel convinced the court that the law was constitutional. The court's decision was the subject of a front page article in New York’s leading legal publication, the New York Law Journal.
An Agreement to Agree on the Development of Real Property.
In Williamsburg Business Park v. Brooklyn Navy Yard Development Corporation, Mr. Wadler assisted in representing the Brooklyn Navy Yard in a case brought by a local real estate developer. Based on preliminary discussions with the Navy Yard, the developer claimed the right to develop a five acre tract of land within the Navy Yard. Hundreds of millions of dollars were at stake and the developer pressed a formidable legal claim. Weable to have the entire case thrown out of court in the first round. This decision, too, was highlighted on the front page of the New York Law Journal. That decision was upheld on appeal.
Rights of a subtenant.
Every residential tenant is entitled to proper notice before an eviction proceeding can go forward. But when the tenant moves out and some unrelated friend remains in the apartment without permission, what rights do they have and what notice is the are they entitled to? In 170 West 85th Street Tenants’ Association v. Nilda Cruz, Mr. Wadler successfully represented the tenants’ organization that owned the building in the landlord-tenant court but an appeal was taken for the occupant by one of the country’s largest and most respected law firms handling the case for free. The Appellate court resolved the issues in favor of the building owner ruling that the occupant of the apartment had gotten the only due process notice that was required. The case settled the rule for the notice requirements against sub-tenants or occupants who are not tenants.
Written Document versus Claims of Misrepresentation.
In Group 88 v. AGA Capital, Mr. Wadler represented a mortgage broker sued by a real estate investor who claimed that the mortgage broker had misrepresented the terms of a mortgage it could obtain for the investor. Mr. Wadler had the case dismissed before trial by showing that the written agreement between the parties precluded the investors’ claims of misrepresentation. That decision was upheld on appeal.
Interpretation of a Trust.
Matter of Bellows, involved the interpretation of a trust created under a Will executed in 1917. When the last of the children died in 1981 leaving no children, the question arose as to how the reminder of the trust was to be distributed. Mr. Wadler was retained to appeal the decision of the Surrogate’s Court and obtained a reversal which was upheld in New York’s highest court.
Lease Clauses, Late Rent and the Tenant’s Right to Renew the Lease.
Jefpaul Garage Corp. v. Presbyterian Hospital involved a commercial tenant’s right to exercise a valuable lease renewal option. The landlord refused to allow the tenant to renew the lease because of past violations for late rent payment. Mr. Wadler and his partner took the case to New York’s highest court which was called upon to interpret common lease clauses and their effect on late rent payments that had been accepted by landlord. The decision has been cited by other courts over 175 times.
Cable Television Franchise; Land Use Review Procedures.
In Orth-O-Vision, Inc. v. City of New York, Mr. Wadler and his partner successfully represented a taxpayer who opposed the City’s award of a cable television franchise for the borough of Queens by showing that the City had failed to put the plans for the proposed cable system through the local community review process. The court issued a preliminary injunction and the City re-opened the bidding for the franchise. This case was one of the first to address the new technology of cable and its impact on the community. It established the right of the community to be involved from the beginning in planning the network that would help shape the future.
What Work is Covered by the Lien Law?
Negvesky v. United Interior Resources involved the installation of modular work stations. The issue was whether or not the work was covered by the Lien Law. By showing, from the outset that the work was not covered by the Lien Law, the case against the client was dismissed and this decision was upheld on appeal.
Mr. Wadler has also handled many other litigated matters. Among these are the following:
Disputes among shareholders, disputes among former shareholders, disputes among former partners, disputes between employer and employee. Numerous case involving violations of commercial and residential real estate leases. Termination or attempted termination of beer distributorship rights. Successful resolution of a disability claim under a long-term disability policy involving hearing loss (which required that the insurance company recognize the nature of the work that the insured was required to do as part of his job). A claim by a nightclub owner against several former employees involved in a scheme that siphoned off hundreds of thousands of dollars of revenue.