Law Offices of Peter Sverd, PLLC

Court Appoints Receiver in Co-Op Habitability Case

2026-06-04T03:25:54Z

On March 26, 2026, a NY Supreme Court judge ordered the appointment of a receiver in the case of Toepfer v. 235 E. 73rd Street Owners Corp., et. al., after her co-op failed to adequately address damage allegedly done to her property by unlicensed and unapproved construction work performed on an adjacent apartment. The receiver will take control of up to $300,000 to address damage done to her apartment by this work. This victory is thanks to the representation of the Law Offices of Peter Sverd, who represented the plaintiff in this case.

The Parties in the Case

The plaintiff in this case is a woman who lives in a co-op located on the Upper East Side in Manhattan, and who is a shareholder in the Co-op that owns the building. She is also suing on behalf of other residents who may have been affected by the negligent conduct of the defendant parties. The primary defendant in this case is the corporation that officially owns and operates the building, and is responsible for maintenance and repairs on the premises. Additionally, the co-op’s board members have been included in the suit, as well as the construction company responsible for the alleged damages.

The Facts of the Case

According to the complaint, the plaintiff was simply living in her apartment in the co-op when unapproved and unlicensed construction began on the apartment immediately above her own. While she complained and initially had the construction halted, it was subsequently approved by the co-op board a day later, resulting in them putting a hole through her roof and causing damage to the apartment’s structure. This resulted in significant damage to her apartment and furnishings, including having debris and soot rain down and cover her furniture, as well as water damage from a burst pipe. The soot was from a major fire that occurred in another apartment, which had unknowingly been trapped inside the walls. The plaintiff also subsequently complained of health issues potentially related to the growth of mold. A subsequent inspection by the property’s insurer found that the apartment also suffered from structural deficiencies, causing issues like water seepage “due to deferred maintenance.” Later testing found that the apartment also had elevated levels of black carbon, which can be hazardous to human health. Despite this, the co-op took no immediate steps to remedy the situation or relocate the plaintiff. In fact, they knowingly concealed the existence of the previous fire, complicating the plaintiff’s insurance claim and potentially resulting in its wrongful denial. A similar incident involving a damaged sewer pipe which resulted in a leak into the apartment was also denied, in no small part due to the co-op concealing the existence of the damaged pipe. Further inspections found extensive structural issues in the apartment related to maintenance and repair issues.

The Court’s Order

In response to this complaint, the Court ordered the appointment of a receiver, who will take control of $300,000 from the Co-Op to address the issues highlighted in the complaint. This is meant to address long-standing maintenance and repair issues in the apartment, and to bring it up to code. The receiver will also oversee the process to ensure all repairs are done in accordance with city, state, and federal law.

Why it Matters

Co-ops are just like any landlord, in that they have a legal obligation to ensure that all apartments they oversee are safe and comfortable to inhabit, known as the implied warranty of habitability. When they fail to meet this basic obligation, people’s lives can be overturned and their safety can be put in peril. Private litigation like this can help hold negligent co-ops and other landlords accountable when they fail to uphold their essential responsibilities.

What is a General Counsel, and Why Might You Need One?

2026-06-04T03:24:06Z

With the legal landscape only becoming more complex over time, having effective legal assistance is more important than ever. It is for this reason that almost all major companies and government agencies, as well as many smaller ones, will have a general counsel on staff. But what exactly is a general counsel, and why might you need one for your business?

What is a General Counsel?

Broadly speaking, a general counsel (also sometimes known as a chief counsel or chief legal advisor) is the foremost attorney on staff at a given company or organization. In smaller companies, they may be the only permanent attorney on staff, while in larger companies they may lead an entire team of lawyers. Regardless of the size of the company, however, they typically have the same role: advising your business on any legal issues that may arise.

What Does a General Counsel Do?

A general counsel’s primary purpose is to give legal advice to a company’s leadership, ensuring their business dealings go as smoothly as possible. Their primary role is to assess potential legal risks, ensure the business is compliant with relevant rules and regulations, and review any major contracts or business transactions. While some general counsels will also represent their company in court, others will have separate attorneys to handle litigation, with the general counsel managing matters behind the scenes.

Why Might You Need a General Counsel?

The reason you might need a general counsel for your business is simple: the law is complicated, and as a business owner, you cannot reasonably be expected to know it all yourself. By having a general counsel, you can be sure to have a lawyer on hand for any legal questions you might have, and also ensure there is someone to oversee your business transactions to ensure they comply with the law. Without a general counsel, you may be stuck trying to handle these legal matters yourself. This is not advisable, since that places you at an increased risk of regulatory violations, contract disputes, and other issues that may embroil you in lawsuits for months or years to come.

What Should You Do For Your Company?

While you may not have a general counsel on staff, that does not mean you cannot get the benefits of having one regardless. The Law Offices of Peter Sverd have extensive experience providing general counsel services to businesses of all sizes, and we can do the same for your company. The sooner you get in contact, the sooner we can get to work on your behalf.

Our client Prevails in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals

2026-02-19T01:28:02Z

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals—one of the most influential appellate courts in the nation—affirmed the decision of The Eastern District Court of New York’s grant of summary judgment to our client Koon Chun Hing Kee Soy & Sauce Factory, Ltd. against Jessica Yang and related corporate entities. In this proceeding our client proved, as a matter of law, that Yang and several corporations were jointly and severally liable for a $900,000 judgment obtained over a third-party, years prior. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals agreed that the documents and depositions obtained through discovery left no doubt that Yang and Co’s were alter egos of the judgment debtor, and that each corporate entity engaged in fraudulent conduct to hide assets which rendered them all judgment proof. This is a major victory for the client, as the award of summary judgment and the confirmatory ruling, resolved the case without the need for a trial, saving our client time and money. The defendants raised two primary arguments on appeal, both of which were rejected: Res Judicata – Defendants claimed the action was barred because of holdings in the prior litigation, which gave rise to the judgment in the first instance. The court disagreed, reasoning that Koon Chun’s successor liability and veil-piercing claims involved new operative facts that arose after the earlier case. Evidentiary Challenge – Defendants argued that Koon Chun’s statement about asset transfers lacked evidentiary support. The court refused to consider this argument because it was not raised in the district court and was therefore forfeited. The court also dismissed all remaining arguments as meritless, confirming that summary judgment was proper because there was no genuine dispute of material fact and Koon Chun was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Praise for the Law Offices of Peter Sverd.

Our law firm delivered an outstanding performance in this complex litigation, to attach a money judgment to other entities and persons. Attorney Sverd’s strategic framing of successor liability and veil-piercing claims were meticulously prepared and presented to the Court ensuring that summary judgment—a rare and powerful remedy—was secured and upheld on appeal. Successfully defending this judgment before the Second Circuit underscores our law firm’s exceptional skill, deep understanding of commercial litigation, and unwavering commitment to the success of our clients.

The Rights of Shareholders

2026-02-19T01:24:29Z

When you purchase shares in a corporation, you become entitled to certain legal rights. Under normal circumstances, exercising these rights is a non-issue, and you can freely benefit from being a shareholder without a problem. However, if your shareholder rights are ever violated, you may need to bring a direct or derivative suit in order to protect your legal and financial interests.

What Rights Do Shareholders Have?

Broadly speaking, the shareholders in a corporation will be entitled to certain basic rights. These may vary depending on the class of stock they own (for example, “common” shareholders may not have the same rights as owners of “preferred” stock), but generally they remain similar across companies. These rights include:

The right to freely purchase and sell stock
The right to collect a dividend
The right to participate and vote in shareholder meetings
The right to elect board members
The right to inspect the company’s books and financial statements
The right to sue if their rights are violated

How Might Your Rights Be Violated?

A shareholder’s rights may be violated whenever they are prevented from obtaining the full benefits of their shares in a company, or when they are prevented from exercising their rights. Interference with any of the rights listed above can potentially become grounds for a lawsuit. Notably, it is not just the company that can violate a shareholder’s rights. In some cases, for example, a majority shareholder may also create legal issues when they abuse their control of a company’s shares, preventing minority shareholders from getting the benefits they deserve. In either case, though, it may be necessary for a shareholder to enforce their rights via litigation.

What Can a Direct Suit Do?

A direct suit is the term for a lawsuit brought against a company, its directors, or its executive officers for alleged harms against the shareholder’s rights. These are used to address harms against the shareholder themselves, such as being denied their voting rights at a shareholder meeting, or being denied a dividend they are entitled to. If a company is found to have violated a shareholder’s rights in a direct suit, any compensation awarded will go to the affected shareholders.

What Can a Derivative Suit Do?

A derivative suit, on the other hand, is one that involves a shareholder suing on behalf of the corporation against the company’s executives, directors, or other third parties (such as the company’s business partners). This is typically done when there has been some kind of serious harm against the company by an executive or director, such as when they breach their fiduciary duty to the company. It may also be done if the executives or directors, for whatever reason, refuse to pursue a lawsuit.

What Should You Do?

If you are a shareholder in a company and your rights have been violated, you may have legal options available to you. That is why you should speak to the Law Offices of Peter Sverd. They can help you explore the facts of your case, and ensure you get the best possible outcome for your circumstances.

NYC Weight Discrimination Law Could Be Inspiration for Other Cities

2025-12-26T03:58:19Z

On November 22, a new law came into effect in New York City that made it illegal for employers to discriminate against workers on the basis of their weight or size. This makes New York City only the latest city to institute such a law, joining other cities like Binghamton, New York; Madison, Wisconsin; San Francisco, California; and Washington, D.C. Advocates have said they hope this law becomes an inspiration for other cities and states to pass similar protections to help fight the issue of weight discrimination.

New York City's weight discrimination law comes into effect

Back in 2023, Mayor Eric Adams signed a law that made weight discrimination illegal in New York City, making it the seventh city in the U.S. to put such a law into effect. This law is meant to address the growing issue of weight discrimination, which is when people face problems obtaining or retaining employment due to their unusual weight or size. While this is a problem that primarily affects people who are overweight or obese, it can also affect those who are unusually thin or underweight, depending on the circumstances.

The scourge of weight and size discrimination

Weight and size discrimination are shockingly common, with an estimated 42% of Americans facing some form of stigma due to their weight, according to the American Psychological Association. This manifests both as personal issues as well as professional ones, impacting the ability of affected individuals to find work or advance in their careers. It can also make their lives more uncomfortable as they face harassment or abuse from coworkers, managers or bosses.

Shaping behavior through legislation

The new law is not meant to necessarily address every instance of weight discrimination. Instead, the goal is to sue a few major offenders, with the expectation that other companies will self-regulate to avoid similar legal issues for themselves. In other words, once a few employers are sued for weight discrimination, others will adopt anti-discriminatory policies to protect themselves from litigation, which in turn helps to protect employees without the need to get the courts involved.

A possible model for other cities and states

One of the reasons this law is important is because it can serve as an example to other cities and states that might be considering similar laws. For example, New Jersey and Massachusetts both have their own form of weight discrimination laws currently under consideration by their respective state legislatures. As it becomes more commonplace, people who suffer from weight discrimination will find themselves facing friendlier and more welcoming workplaces, allowing them to be judged on their merits rather than their size or weight.

Peter Sverd Successfully Reverses $200 Million Defamation Judgment

2025-12-26T03:49:38Z

In the case of Bacon v. Nygard, Peter Sverd of the [nap_names id="FIRM-NAME-1"], successfully overturned a $200 million defamation judgment against his client. The said client was sued for alleged defamation but never received notice of the lawsuit and, thus, was unable to defend himself against the allegations, resulting in a default judgment and an award of $200 million to the plaintiff. The First Department of the New York Appellate Division unanimously overturned this judgment, finding that the service of process was insufficient and the default judgment was unwarranted.

What happened in this case?

The defendant-appellant was serving time in prison when the plaintiff-respondent sued him for alleged defamation in the Supreme Court in New York County. When the process server went to give the defendant the summons and complaint, however, he instead gave it to a receptionist at the prison where he was incarcerated, with a promise that the documents would be conveyed to the defendant. However, he never received notice of the lawsuit, meaning he never submitted a response nor appeared in court to defend himself, resulting in a default judgment against him. A special referee then awarded the plaintiff $200 million in damages for the alleged defamation. The defendant appealed both of these decisions to the First Department.

What was the legal issue in dispute?

The primary legal question before the court is whether the service of process was sufficient to satisfy the legal requirement of notice. By law, all defendants must be given a summons and complaint, in person, by a process server, unless there is some circumstance that makes in-person service impossible. If that happens, there must be an acceptable substitute. The question was whether this was an acceptable substitute for in-person service.

What did the court decide?

By a unanimous vote, the First Department found that the service of process was insufficient, meaning the Supreme Court erred in awarding a default judgment to the plaintiff. A receptionist at a prison was not a valid recipient for the appellant’s service of process, precisely because it created the kinds of communication issues seen here. As a result, both the default judgment and the $200 million judgment were overturned.

Why does this matter?

In order for people to be able to exercise their legal rights, they must first be afforded the opportunity to defend themselves in court. This includes the right to know they are being sued in the first place, and the service of process requirements are an integral part of that. The outcome in the Supreme Court is a sign of what can happen when these essential procedural requirements are sidestepped or ignored.

Unpacking Schirmer v. Piazza: A Landmark Decision on Quiet Title Actions and Default Judgments

2023-08-24T14:28:20Z

In a significant legal development, the Appellate Division, Second Department of New York rendered a decision on March 8, 2023, in the case of Schirmer v. Piazza, 214 A.D.3d 749, 186 N.Y.S.3d 37, (2d Dept. 2023). The decision addresses pivotal aspects of quiet title actions, default judgments, and their implications under New York law. This post delves into the key details and implications of the Schirmer v. Piazza case, shedding light on its implications for future cases involving similar issues. Background The case of Schirmer v. Piazza revolved around a dispute over real property rights. The plaintiff, Schirmer, initiated a quiet title action alleging fraudulent deed conveyances against the defendants, Piazza and 81 Real Estate Corp., seeking to establish their ownership rights over a piece of real estate that was transferred once in 2013, and again in 2015. The 2015 transaction, to 81 Real Estate Corp., led to the the substantial re-development of the property. Plaintiff was seeking an order that they owned title to their share of the property. A quiet title action is a legal proceeding that aims to determine the rightful ownership of property, often involving claims to set aside fraudulent deed conveyances, remove clouds on title or disputes over adverse possession. Default Judgments and Their Consequences One of the focal points of the Schirmer v. Piazza case was the issue of default judgments. A default judgment occurs when a defendant fails to respond to a lawsuit within the specified timeframe, leading the court to rule in favor of the plaintiff by default. In this case, the co-defendant, 81 Real Estate Corp., failed to answer the plaintiff's complaint in a timely manner, resulting in a default judgment in favor of Schirmer. Trial Attorney & Appellate Counsel’s Role Trial Attorney & Appellate counsel play a critical role in the legal process, particularly when a party seeks to challenge a lower court's decision on appeal. In the context of Schirmer v. Piazza, our role as both trial and appellate counsel for 81 Real Estate Corp., played a pivotal role in procuring the vacatur of the default judgment, and defending the trial court’s decision before the Appellate Court. Trial counsel and Appellate counsel are tasked with gathering facts, crafting persuasive legal arguments, conducting thorough research, and presenting a compelling case before the trial court and the appellate court. The Decision and Its Significance The Appellate Division, Second Department, in its decision, addressed the validity of the default judgment and the impact it had on the action to set aside the fraudulent conveyances. The court reiterated that service of a summons and complaint upon a corporation through delivery to the Secretary of State is not “personal delivery” upon the corporation, and agreed that the application of CPLR 317, merited vacating the default. Under CPLR 317, a defaulting defendant that was “served with a summons other than by personal delivery” may be permitted to defend the action upon a finding that the defendant did not personally receive notice of the summons in time to defend and has a meritorious defense. Importantly, a reasonable excuse for the default need not be established. The court's ruling shed light on the importance of ensuring due process, even in cases where one party fails to respond in a timely manner. The decision further underscored the principle that default judgments will be vacated where the defaulting party relies upon service of process via the Secretary of State, and by serving out of date, or incorrectly addressed supplemental CPLR 3215 notices upon a corporate defendant. Implications for Future Cases The Schirmer v. Piazza decision sets a precedent for future cases involving quiet title actions and default judgments in New York. It emphasizes the necessity for plaintiffs to provide all defendants with notice of the commencement of the lawsuit, and that the mere reliance on service of process through the Secretary of State may not be sufficient for a judgment taken on default, to stick. Plaintiffs should always serve the corporate defendant at whatever addresses they have for the corporation. Additionally, the decision underscores the need for defendants to diligently pursue legal recourse when faced with default judgments that they believe were entered unfairly. Conclusion The Appellate Division's decision in Schirmer v. Piazza marks a significant reiteration of New York law concerning quiet title actions, default judgments, and the role of trial and appellate counsel. The ruling serves as a reminder of the importance of upholding due process and ensuring that parties have the opportunity to present their cases, even after default judgments are entered against them. It is clear that the principles reiterated by the court in Schirmer v. Piazza, will resonate in the realm of real property and litigation disputes for years to come.

Appellate Division Affirms Order Vacating 2017 Default: Real Estate Development Corp Gets a Second Chance

2024-09-22T22:48:47Z

Plaintiff commenced the action in 2015 seeking to set aside two deed transfers to the same property, which vested title in our client 81 Real Estate Corp (81) Our client paid $980,000 for the property in 2014, and since then invested nearly double that, to build a multifamily dwelling. The Plaintiff sought to take the property back alleging that her brother and sister conveyed their late father's property to themselves by a fraudulent deed after his death. The client learned of the lawsuit in 2019 and successfully vacated its default so it could be heard on the merits of its defense. The Court agreed that pursuant to CPLR 317, a defaulting defendant that was “served with a summons other than by personal delivery” may be permitted to defend the action upon a finding that the defendant did not personally receive notice of the summons in time to defend the action, and has a meritorious defense. The Court reasoned that 81 did not receive notice of the lawsuit where the Plaintiff served 81 by Secretary of State (which is not 'personal delivery' upon a corporation), and all subsequent legal papers served upon 81 were at other various locations, which 81 stated had no connection. 81 stood to lose the property on default and our technical procedural arguments won the day.

Schirmer v. Piazza, 214 A.D.3d 749, 186 N.Y.S.3d 37 (2d Dept. 2023)

Litigants should never count themselves out, and practitioners should not merely rely upon service by the Secretary of State to effectuate service. Personal service and Secretary of State service may be necessary in many instances to ensure the corporation receives the summons.

Landlord- Tenant Court Bounces Case After Trial- Wrong Court

2023-06-07T21:17:22Z

The Queens County Civil Court dismissed our adversaries action to evict our client's tenant after trial. A multifamily home in Queens is the subject of an ownership dispute between our client and a former colleague. Our client has been renting out the third-floor residential premises for over a decade by written leases (even though he is not on the property's deed). After his former colleague made an adverse claim to title over the entire property- in a blatant "land grab", he started an action to evict our third-floor tenants so he could keep the rent for himself. This was the adversaries second attempt to evict our tenants since we commenced an action to quiet title and sell the four family home in the NY Supreme Court. The result of the second case was same as the first- dismissal after trial. The Civil Court agreed, that its limited jurisdiction precluded it from ruling on the validity of our clients lease, which for all intent and purposes was satisfactory to give the tenant possession of the premises. The trial court further reasoned that only the Supreme Court had the power to rule that the lease was fraudulent and that our client was not an owner of the property who, therefore, lacked the authority to lease the third-floor unit. Mohammad Rahman v. Felipe Torres, et al., Queens L&T Index No.: 307082/2021

Enforcing Judgments: Corporate Veil’s Successfully Pierced & Fraudulent Conveyances Proven.

2023-01-21T19:42:29Z

Getting a final non-appealable money judgment can be time consuming and costly. So what happens when you finally get a judgment but can't collect on it? The Answer: you have to keep digging and pushing, and digging and pushing. Our client hired us in 2019 to enforce a money judgment they won in 2010. Judgments in New York state are valid for 20 years. In our experience the longer the judgment is not satisfied, the harder it is to collect. In this case the judgment debtor absconded to China and the debtor corporations were left with no assets and ceased conducting operation years ago. In 2023, a Federal District Court Judge awarded our Hong Kong based client summary judgment in the amount of $989,426.13 against the judgment debtor's spouse and several other New York corporations. We commenced action in 2019 against the judgment debtor's spouse and other corporations alleging that they had fraudulently received and conveyed assets of the debtor and that other New York corporations were the debtor's successors in interest. After numerous subpoenas, depositions, and thousands of pages of bank records from multiple institutions, we presented the Court with an air-tight case for summary judgment on many of our causes of action.

You can read The Court's decision at Koon Chun Hing Kee Soy & Sauce Factory, Ltd. v. Yang, et al. 19-cv-02026 EDNY. If Frankenstein was a complaint, perhaps, we drafted it in Koon Chung. When you are suing nine (9) different companies and two (2) individuals on fact specific transactions from ten years ago to the present, and then weave those facts into causes of action with numerous elements, your complaint may be 69 pages. Maybe someone else could have made this complicated case in a more concise and paper friendly manner- but we did our best, and we got what we wanted.

Goes to show that grit, know-how, and steadfast determination can get you closer to your desired result. While the story does not end here, the client is much closer to getting satisfaction then they were when we started in 2019.