R. Del Vecchio

The plaintiff, a real estate broker, brought an urgent motion for a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) on a pre-construction property after the defendant developer terminated the Agreement of Purchase and Sale.

The developer terminated the agreement upon discovering the plaintiff had submitted a false mortgage approval letter.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while the plaintiff might have a triable interest in land, the property was not unique and damages would be an adequate remedy.

Crucially, the court held that the plaintiff did not come to court with clean hands, as he had tendered an admittedly false document, and thus was not entitled to equitable relief.

The plaintiff construction manager brought a motion for summary judgment for its share of cost savings realized on a condominium project.

The defendant owner argued there were no cost savings and counterclaimed for damages.

The court interpreted the construction management contract, determining the Gross Liveable Area and finding that only construction costs managed by the plaintiff should be included in the actual total cost calculation.

The court granted summary judgment, finding no genuine issue for trial, and ordered a reference to determine the exact quantum of cost savings.

The defendant owner brought a motion to discharge the plaintiff construction manager's claims for lien.

The plaintiff had registered a lien for over $7.5 million, representing its 50% share of cost savings realized on the construction project pursuant to the contract.

The defendant argued that cost savings are akin to profit-sharing and are not lienable under section 14 of the Construction Act.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that cost savings provisions are integrally linked to the services provided by a construction manager and are therefore properly lienable.

The moving parties brought a motion to remove the responding parties' counsel of record due to an alleged conflict of interest.

The moving parties argued that the law firm had previously acted for a jointly owned corporation and possessed confidential information relevant to the current shareholder dispute, specifically regarding a project called AllianceCare.

The court found that the law firm had a prior solicitor-client relationship with the jointly owned corporation and that the new retainer was sufficiently related to the past work, raising a rebuttable presumption of prejudice.

Because the responding parties refused to answer questions about AllianceCare during cross-examination, the court drew an adverse inference and found the presumption was not rebutted.

The motion was granted and the law firm was removed as counsel of record.