Cost-Efficient. Speed. Results.
Gerry Grunsfeld heads the Commercial/Business Litigation department at Lazar Grunsfeld Elnadav, and has more than a decade of experience, both defending and prosecuting, commercial and business disputes, involving some of the largest companies/organizations in the United States, including Pfizer, Yamaha, GE, New York City, United States Steel, JFK Airport, and New York University. Mr. Grunsfeld also has extensive experience representing mid-size and small businesses.
It is a key principle of Lazar Grunsfeld Elnadav to keep our client’s legal fees as low as possible. Our overriding concern is that every dollar spent on legal fees must advance the client’s cause in a clearly discernible manner. In addition, we ensure that we obtain results that provide value commensurate with the legal fees spent in the objectives.
Lazar Grunsfeld Elnadav focuses on achieving our clients’ objectives as quickly as possible. We do not allow our adversaries to delay resolution of a dispute by failing to treat a matter with the urgency it deserves.
Ultimately, Lazar Grunsfeld Elnadav’s principle focus is on obtaining outstanding results for our clients. Mr. Grunsfeld represents both Plaintiffs and Defendants in commercial and business disputes, always using the law to the client’s advantage. For example, Mr. Grunsfeld used New York’s “Long Arm” jurisdiction statute to obtain Summary Judgment on behalf of a defendant Portuguese manufacturer of pressure cookers by showing that the manufacturer did not have sufficient ties to New York to come within New York’s jurisdiction, while in a different case, he was able to employ the exact same statute to prove that a Chinese battery manufacturer did have sufficient ties to New York, thus enabling the distributor client to ensure that the Chinese manufacturer was held responsible for its product. The latter decision was particularly gratifying as it was achieved after Mr. Grunsfeld carved out a narrow exception to a recent United States Supreme Court ruling severely limiting states’ ability to exercise jurisdiction over out of-state entities.
Lazar Grunsfeld Elnadav represents clients with Commercial / Business disputes, including:
- Contractual disputes/litigation
- Employment disputes/litigation
- Partnership disputes/litigation
- Construction disputes/litigation
- Commercial debt collection
- Judgment enforcement
- Mortgage foreclosure prosecution/defense
Most Recent Reported Decision:
UTC Fire & Sec. Americas Corp., Inc. v. NCS Power, Inc., WL 423349, (S.D.N.Y., 2012)
Most Recent Unreported Decisions:
July 2014 (Real Estate Litigation)
Judge Silber of Kings Supreme Court granted Mr. Grunsfeld’s motion for Summary Judgment seeking to compel the seller to honor his contract to sell the Subject Property to Mr. Grunsfeld’s client.
November 2013 (Real Estate Litigation)
A client entered into a contract to purchase a property and provided a down payment. A few days later, a friend advised him that the seller had offered him the property for an additional $200,000. The client contacted the seller to demand that he complete the sale as contracted but the seller demanded an additional $150,000 claiming he had not been well when he signed the contract.
Within 48 hours of being contacted by the client, we filed a lawsuit seeking specific performance, and we filed a Notice of Pendency to prevent the property being sold. A few days later we filed a motion for preliminary injunction, which was granted. We will be filing a motion for Summary Judgment in the coming days.
June 2013 (Real Estate Litigation)
LGE’s client was sued and accused of fraudulent transfer of property title. LGE thoroughly investigated the matter and determined that the allegation completely untrue. LGE did not even answer the complaint. Instead, we filed a Pre-Answer Motion to Dismiss and also sought attorneys’ fees. The Court granted LGE’s motion and we were thus able to save our client tens of thousands of dollars in litigation costs and years of headache that litigation would have entailed.
April 2013 (Real Estate Litigation)
An LGE client had agreed to sell a property to Plaintiff but after a year without any movement on the Plaintiff to act on the agreement, our client legitimately looked elsewhere for a buyer. Plaintiff sued for an order compelling our client to sell him the property. LGE did not even answer the complaint. Instead, we filed a Pre-Answer Motion to Dismiss . The Court granted LGE’s motion and we were thus able to save our client tens of thousands of dollars in litigation costs and years of headache that litigation would have entailed. Most importantly, our victory enabled our client to proceed with his planned sale to a different buyer.