Mackiewicz & Associates L.L.C.- Attorneys At Law

Success Stories

Paragon at Seaside Heights, LLC
In 2001 our client signed a contract to acquire property on the ocean in northern Seaside Heights, New Jersey. The property was an entire block on the boardwalk. An application was made to construct a forty unit residential condominium. The town rejected this proposal. We were then retained to prosecute the prerogative writ action. During the course of those proceedings we proved the town had failed to undertake its periodic reexamination of its master plan thereby creating a presumption of invalidity for its zoning ordinances. As a result the matter was settled with our client receiving approval to construct a thirty unit project on the , ocean. The next proceeding related to the State of New Jersey. As oceanfront property the project required a permit under the Coastal Area Review Act. This was denied because the project had two independent town homes that the State of New Jersey said were on a sand dune. We successfully negotiated resolution with the State of New Jersey however, this changed the project. Under the State approved plan, the building height went from forty feet to fifty-nine feet, fully nineteen feet over Seaside Heights' forty foot height ordinance. It was then necessary for us to proceed before the town again to obtain approval. This was accomplished and now the project is fully approved and consists of thirty condominium units including two penthouses. To view the renderings and plans click on the following link.

Freebird d/b/a The Chicken & Rib Crib v. JFM Groun - Docket No. HUD-L- 1874-05
Our client was a commercial tenant whose lease had expired and was operating on a month-to-month tenancy. The landlord instituted suit to remove our client. We countersued, removed the case from landlord-tenant Court to the Superior Court, and argued that our client had an oral three year lease. After approximately eighteen months of litigation, the parties reached a settlement. This was effected, in part, by our putting the defendant in touch with one of our commercial lending clients for purposes of procuring financing to rehabilitate the building. As a result, our client's business was saved and our client now has a new lease.

Griefeld vs. Retention Resources, Inc. - Docket No. UNN-L-0487-05
In this matter we represented the defendant, a specialty company that hand crafts super high end travel experiences. This case centered around an experience to Ireland and plaintiffs contention was he was over billed in respect to the $600,000.00 trip. We were retained two weeks before trial. Our job was made more difficult because predecessor counsel had failed to properly respond in pretrial proceedings resulting in the Court refusing to permit critical documents into evidence. As if that were not enough, our client's adversary was extremely well heeled and chose to spare no expense on prosecuting the claim. Lastly, the central issue turned on a credibility question and plaintiff was glad to pit his credibility against our client under the belief his credibility was far greater owing to his position as the President and CEO of NASDAC. In spite of these overwhelming odds, over the span of a five day bench trial, we prevailed and our client did not have to reimburse any sums. For a copy of the article published in The Times click here.

Telemark vs. Altaire Pharmaceuticals. Inc. - American Arbitration Association File No. 13E1450256803
Following termination of a marketing firm, our client was sued for sums owed as well as a claim that the parties contract obligated a rollout payment over two years. We were retained after the case was moved from the Courts to arbitration in New York. Our client faced several hundred thousand dollars of exposure over and above sums that were due and owing. We successfully argued the contract provision relied upon by Telemark did not allow for the two year rollout thereby saving our client several hundred thousand dollars.

Leyton vs. Independence Community Bank (n/k/a Sovereign Bank) - UNN-L-5307-99, UNN-L-0284-02 (Consolidated Actions)
After numerous years of litigation our client's insurance carrier claimed it was not obligated to provide a defense or indemnification. We were retained by Independence Community Bank (n/k/a Sovereign Bank) to defend that claim and to prosecute a declaratory judgment action on the coverage dispute. The case arose when plaintiff fell while at work. The following morning she went into premature labor and the infant plaintiff was born with cerebral palsy. The charge was that the bank was negligent causing the fall which caused the premature birth and resulting cerebral palsy. The issue on the coverage dispute turned on an insurance clause that provided the insurer was not responsible for a defense or indemnification if the child of an employee is injured as a consequence of an injury to the employee arising out of and in the course of employment. The insurer argued that the employee fell at work which fall resulted in the birth leading to the cerebral palsy. We successfully defended the action, proved the exclusion did not apply, effected coverage and indemnification through the insurer and won attorneys' fees for our client. As a result, the claim was the sole responsibility of the insurance carrier.

Castro vs. Integra Construction Company of New York. Inc., New York Index No. 8808-03
Our client, a commercial general contractor, was sued for injuries arising at a work site. After a default was entered, we vacated and proceeded to provide a defense. Simultaneously, we proceeded with an action against our client's insurer in order to obtain coverage and indemnification. Ultimately, the insurer agreed, and also reimbursed our client for all attorney's fees incurred in both the defense and in establishing that insurance coverage exists.

Attorney to Attorney
Firm Overview
Practice Areas
Attorney Profiles
Litigation News
Real Estate Newsletter
Web Resources
Contact Us
Success Stories
Resources for First Time  Home Buyers

Home Ownership Information Center


Printer Friendly

Add to Favorites

Mackiewicz & Associates
New Jersey Location 625 Washington Street
Hoboken, New Jersey 07030

T (201) 217-1500
F (201) 217-4448
Email Us

Mackiewicz & Associates
New York Location 60 East 42nd Street,
47th Floor
New York, New York 10165

T (212) 922-9722
F (212) 922-9723
Email Us

The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. You should consult an attorney for individual advice regarding your own situation.

© 2009 by Mackiewicz & Associates L.L.C - Attorneys at Law. All rights reserved. Disclaimer | Site Map