James E. Schwartz, Esq.
Partner
Litigation
James E. Schwartz is a member of the litigation department. Prior to joining the Firm as a partner in September 2006, he had been a partner at Carb Luria Cook & Kufeld LLP.
Mr. Schwartz concentrates his practice in all phases of commercial litigation, with an emphasis on commercial real estate litigation, and in particular representing owners/landlords. Mr. Schwartz also has vast experience in the litigation of real estate brokerage actions, on behalf of both brokers and landlords/owners. He appears regularly before the Civil Court, the Supreme Court, and the appellate courts.
Education
Duke Law School - 1981
University of Pennsylvania, cum laude - 1978
Bar Admissions
New York State - 1982
United States District Court, Southern and Eastern Districts of New York
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Reported Decisions
- Peninsula Asset Mgmt. (Cayman) Ltd. v. Hankook Tire Co., Ltd., 476 F.3d 140 (2d Cir. 2007) (foreign country’s regulatory agency – Financial Supervisory Service of The Republic of Korea – enjoys sovereign immunity from process and accordingly need not respond to subpoena directing it to turn over documents relating to its investigatory and adjudicating activities).
- *Rosenbaum v. City of New York, 96 NY.2d 468, 730 N.Y.S.2d 774 (2001) (municipal lien for emergency repairs performed before, but filed after, sale of building warrants discharge because failure to file negates notice to purchaser; Court quotes from amicus brief, “we share the observation of amicus that the statutory scheme, to put it mildly, ‘is not a model of clarity’.” 96 N.Y.2d at 474, 730 N.Y.S.2d at 778).
- *Sonnenschein v. Douglas Elliman-Gibbons & Ives, 96 N.Y.2d 369,729 N.Y.S.2d 62 (2001) (where owner hires real estate broker to produce potential purchaser for real property, broker owes no fiduciary duty to owner to refrain from showing other properties to that purchaser).
- Dime Savings Bank of New York. F.S.B. v. Pesce, 93 N.Y.2d 939, 693N.Y.S.2d 66 (1999) (first decision to hold that lien of bank, making loan secured by mortgage on borrower’s leasehold condominium unit located in leasehold condominium project (Battery Park City), trumps that of public authority, the landlord under a long term lease, for unpaid rent).
- *Gaines v. New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 90 N.Y.2d 545, 664 N.Y.S.2d 249 (1997) (first decision to hold that exemption for rent overcharge liability under DHCR’S rules, applicable to purchaser at foreclosure sale, applies to grantees in purchaser’s chain of title).
- *Holy Props., Inc. v. Kenneth Cole Prods., Inc., 87 N.Y.2d 130, 637 N.Y.S.2d 964 (1995) (reaffirming rule, for the first time in a century, that commercial landlord lacks duty to mitigate damages where tenant abandons leasehold before lease’s expiration). WW
- Citadel Mgt. Co., Inc. v. Macklowe Org., 286 A.D.2d 572, 729 N.Y.S.2d 891 (1st Dep’t 2001) (Appellate Division reverses trial court’s dismissal of client-broker’s complaint and grants summary judgment on liability to broker, holding that since broker acted only as finder, broker owed no fiduciary duty to brokers customer).
- Helmsley-Spear, Inc. v. New York Blood Ctr., Inc. 257 A.D.2d 64, 687 N.Y.S.2d 353 (1st Dep’t 1999) (Appellate Division reverses trial court’s denial of client-broker’s motion for summary judgment and holds that where title passes pursuant to contract of sale reciting that seller will pay any commissions due to broker pursuant to separate agreement, broker is entitled to summary judgment for its commission and need not marshal other evidence showing that it was the procuring cause).
- Star Nissan, Inc. v. Frishwasser, 253 A.D.2d 491, 677 N.Y.S.2d 145 (2d Dept 1998) (Appellate Division reverses denial of client-landlord’s motion for summary judgment and holds that net lease making tenant responsible for all obligations relating to leased property requires tenant to bear responsibility for underground oil contamination that would otherwise have been landlord’s responsibility under New York Navigation Law § 170 et seq.)
- Konrad v. 136 E. 64th St. Corp., 246 A.D.2d 324, 667 N.Y.S.2d 354 (1st Dep’t 1998) (Appellate Division reverses trial court’s permitting client’s adversary to amend her complaint and holds that where cooperative’s directors act in corporate capacity and do not commit separate tortious acts, they are not personally liable for alleged wrongs perpetrated against dissident tenant/shareholder).
* Appeared on behalf of ultimately prevailing amicus