Anthony J. D’Artiglio

2024 Edition of Super Lawyers and Rising Stars Recognizes Ansell.Law Attorneys

Ansell Grimm April 3, 2024

The 2024 New Jersey Super Lawyers and Rising Stars list recognizes nine Ansell Grimm & Aaron attorneys.* Fewer than 5% of New Jersey attorneys are named to the annual Super Lawyers edition. “Rising Stars” are the legal profession’s up-and-coming attorneys, either under age 40 or practicing for ten years or less. These exceptional attorneys comprise fewer than 2.5% of New Jersey lawyers.

The attorneys appearing on the 2024 list of New Jersey Super Lawyers are:

Allison Ansell – Family Law

Mitchell Ansell – Criminal Defense, DUI-DWI, White Collar Crimes

Lawrence Shapiro – Business Litigation

Andrea White – Family Law

Attorneys recognized as 2024 Rising Stars are:

Brian Ashnault – Business Litigation

Anthony D’Artiglio – Business Litigation, Bankruptcy

Layne Feldman – General Litigation

Nicole Miller – General Litigation, Real Estate

Jonathan Sherman – Real Estate

*No aspect of this advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court of New Jersey or the American Bar Association.

Federal Judge Grants Petition To Intervene Filed by Ansell.Law on Behalf of Belmar Residents in Verizon Cell Tower Litigation

Ansell Grimm March 27, 2024

In a victory for residents of Belmar, New Jersey, who oppose the placement of cell towers along their seaside boardwalk, a federal judge recently granted a petition to intervene filed by Ansell.Law partner Anthony J. D’Artiglio and associate Layne A. Feldman that will allow them to join a lawsuit filed by Verizon Wireless against Monmouth County.

In this hotly contested and closely watched matter, Ansell.Law represents “Belmar Against 5G Towers,” a coalition of local residents who claim that Verizon’s proposed wireless towers along the borough’s boardwalk would “harm the aesthetic quality of their neighborhood, the local environment and, potentially, their property values,” according to an article about the case in Law360.

Verizon sued Monmouth County and its Board of Commissioners when they rejected its request to build the towers, claiming the denial was not supported by substantial evidence and breached an agreement between Verizon and Monmouth regarding placement of the towers within public right of ways controlled by the County. With the approval of the petition to intervene filed by D’Artiglio and Feldman, Belmar residents can now assert their own arguments and objections alongside those of Monmouth County to challenge the approval process advanced by Verizon.

D’Artiglio’s practice encompasses complex litigation, bankruptcy, controlled substances and regulatory law, and labor and employment. Feldman handles a diverse range of complex commercial and civil litigation matters.

Time To Go: How New Jersey Commercial Landlords Can Deal With Holdover Tenants

Ansell Grimm March 27, 2024

By Anthony J. D’Artiglio

When a houseguest overstays their welcome, a friendly hint or gentle nudge is usually enough to get them packing. When a commercial tenant overstays their welcome after the conclusion of their lease term, both the consequences and steps to get them out are more consequential and more complicated.

Holdover tenants are a common problem for commercial and residential lessors alike. But as with many other aspects of the landlord-tenant relationship, the laws that govern the eviction of commercial and residential lessees in New Jersey have significant differences. While residential tenants receive a bit more leeway than their commercial counterparts, strict compliance with the law’s requirements is essential in both cases. Failure to follow the letter of the law can further delay the departure of a commercial holdover tenant and even expose the landlord to liability in certain circumstances.

Holdover Tenancy Defined

Typically, when a commercial lease term expires, the tenancy becomes month-to-month if neither party provides notice to terminate or renew. However, if a tenant continues to occupy the premises without the landlord’s approval after the lease ends (and no new lease or extension has been agreed to), they are considered a holdover tenant.

Given that holdover tenancies, at least for relatively brief periods, are not uncommon, most commercial leases have provisions that specifically address this situation. A landlord evaluating its options with a holdover tenant should always look first at the lease terms before deciding on a course of action. These clauses typically provide for a steep rent increase, up to 150% or 200% of the base and additional rent while treating the tenancy as month-to-month. Most also allow for the landlord to initiate eviction proceedings notwithstanding the acceptance of any amounts paid by the tenant.

Even without such provisions, New Jersey law provides that holdover tenants are liable for double the rent provided for in the lease for however long they remain in possession of the premises after being served with notice, as discussed below.

First Steps Towards Getting a Holdover Tenant Out

One of the cardinal rules for a commercial landlord dealing with a holdover tenant is not to take matters into their own hands. Certainly, the landlord can engage in communications, discussions, and negotiations with the tenant regarding their vacation of the premises. But changing the locks or otherwise denying the lessee access to the premises, removing contents, and other forms of self-help can have disastrous consequences, exposing the landlord to significant liability. Instead, the landlord should start eviction proceedings and meticulously follow the specified rules and timelines set forth in the law.

As noted, two different sets of laws apply to residential and commercial tenancies in New Jersey. While the Anti-Eviction Act governs residential leases, the Summary Dispossess Act controls how commercial evictions proceed, including those involving holdover tenants.

The first step, and a required prerequisite to initiating an eviction of a holdover tenant, is to properly serve them with a written Notice to Quit and Demand for Possession. In most situations, where the tenant stays in the premises after the lease expires and the lease is treated as month-to-month, the notice must give the tenant 30 days to vacate the space.

The notice and demand must be personally served either upon the tenant or such person in possession by giving them a copy or leaving it at their usual place of abode with a family member above the age of 14. If service cannot be accomplished that way, the notice can be given to anyone occupying the leased premises. If that doesn’t work, service can be made by posting the notice on the door of the premises.

Initiation of Eviction Proceedings

Once 30 days have passed after proper service of the notice and demand on the tenant, the landlord can initiate an eviction case. Presuming the landlord complied with all pre-filing requirements and properly initiated the proceedings under the Summary Dispossess Act, as the name implies, the eviction action is designed to move expeditiously, in no small part to deter landlords from exercising any self-help remedies.

The eviction begins with filing a summons and complaint in the county where the leased premises are located. Once the tenant is properly served with these documents by the Court, the court will set a trial date, typically within 10 to 30 days after service.

Entry of Judgment for Possession and Exercise of Remedies

If the tenant fails to appear at the trial date, the court will enter a default judgment in favor of the landlord. If the tenant appears in Court, the judge will likely direct the parties to meet with a mediator in an effort to reach a negotiated resolution. If those negotiations do not bear fruit, and presuming the tenant has no legitimate defense, the court will enter a judgment for possession in favor of the landlord.

Following entry of judgment, the landlord can apply for a Warrant of Removal, which gives a sheriff or constable the authority to remove the tenant from the premises. Unlike in residential cases, the officer performs the eviction immediately upon service of the Warrant for Removal, forcibly removing the tenant if required and restoring possession to the landlord. The landlord is advised to have a locksmith on site at the time of the eviction to change all the locks barring the former tenant from further entry to the premises. If the lessee leaves property in the space after their removal, the property can be considered abandoned — either by the terms of the lease or by statute after providing the appropriate notice and the waiting period elapsing — permitting the lessor to remove or liquidate such property and apply the proceeds to any back rent or other unpaid amounts.

As noted, a commercial landlord wanting to retake possession from a holdover tenant should begin serving the notices required by New Jersey law as soon as possible after the conclusion of the lease term if no other arrangements, agreements, or extensions have been agreed upon with the tenant.

Given the critical importance of strict compliance with notice and service requirements, New Jersey commercial property owners should always retain experienced counsel before initiating efforts to regain possession from a holdover tenant — indeed, if the landlord is a corporate entity it is required to retain counsel to appear on its behalf in landlord-tenant Court.

If you have questions or need assistance regarding a holdover commercial tenant, please contact Anthony D’Artiglio at Ansell Grimm & Aaron.

Interdepartmental Teamwork Overcomes Challenge to Client’s Use Variance Approval

Ansell Grimm March 18, 2024

In a client success, shareholder Jennifer Krimko obtained approval for the client to operate a community center and academic tutoring space in Rumson, New Jersey. On the heels of this victory, Litigation Department attorneys Anthony D’Artiglio and Layne Feldman protected that approval following an objecting neighbor’s appeal to the Superior Court. Through an aggressive defense, the approval was upheld, and the objector’s appeal was denied, allowing the clients to continue operating their business serving the local community. Collaboration with the Land Use Department provided nuanced insight into the case and helped secure another victory for the client.

Jennifer co-chairs the Firm’s Land Use Department. She devotes her practice to all areas relating to real estate, representing a wide variety of clients — from individuals to large developers — in all phases of governmental approvals before municipal, county, and state agencies.

Anthony is a partner and litigation team leader in the Firm’s Woodland Park office. His varied practice includes commercial lease disputes, class actions, Consumer Fraud Act claims, corporate/shareholder disputes, employment disputes, secured property actions, and creditors’ rights in bankruptcy matters.

As an associate in the Firm’s Commercial Litigation Department, Layne has a diverse complex commercial and civil litigation practice. She handles commercial lease disputes, Consumer Fraud Act claims, corporate/shareholder disputes, and secured property actions.

Rite-Aid’s Shuttering of Numerous Stores Illustrates the Challenges Faced by Commercial Landlords When a Tenant Files for Bankruptcy

Ansell Grimm November 7, 2023

By Anthony J. D’Artiglio

Pharmacy giant Rite-Aid’s bankruptcy and proposed reorganization plans have had wide-ranging and cascading impacts from coast to coast. But perhaps the most immediate and acute effects of the company’s insolvency are felt by the commercial landlords that host the scores of leased locations that Rite-Aid intends to close as part of its restructuring strategy. This includes its planned sale of 78 Rite Aid and Bartell Drugs neighborhood pharmacy leases in free-standing buildings and retail shopping centers across nine states.

The challenges and uncertainty now faced by Rite-Aid’s lessors illustrate those regularly confronted by commercial landlords when a tenant’s bankruptcy or insolvency leaves them with unoccupied spaces and significantly diminished cash flow. As such, landlords must understand their options, rights, and remedies under the Bankruptcy Code to minimize the fallout and avoid inadvertent and costly mistakes when a tenant suddenly shutters its doors during a current lease term.

Assumption, Rejection, and Assignment of Lease Under Bankruptcy Code Section 365

Bankruptcy Code Section 365 governs the treatment of commercial leases in bankruptcy cases. Since the automatic stay, at least initially, limits the remedies and actions a landlord can take regarding the defaulting tenant, what happens next is largely up to the tenant.

A tenant typically has 120 days after filing its bankruptcy petition to either reject, assume, or assume and assign or sell the lease.

While a bankruptcy judge can extend the 120-day deadline for an additional 90 days for good cause without the lessor’s consent, the landlord’s assent is required for any further extension requests.

During this period, the tenant must continue to satisfy its ongoing lease obligations, including paying rent, with post-petition rent obligations prioritized as an administrative claim. Notably, the lessor must continue to comply with the lease’s terms during this time or risk running afoul of the automatic stay.

If the debtor does not assume or reject its lease within the applicable time, the court will consider the lease rejected, and the tenant must then immediately vacate the leased premises.

Option 1: Rejecting the Lease

If a debtor elects to reject the lease, it essentially defaults and, accordingly, must vacate the premises. Upon rejection, the lessor can assert a “rejection damage” claim, which is considered a prepetition unsecured claim—sharing pro rata with other general unsecured creditors. Unlike other rejection damage claims, however, Bankruptcy Code Section 502(b)(6) caps the lessor’s rejection claims to the greater of one year’s rent or 15% of the rent of the remaining term of the lease, capped at no more than three years of total rent.

Option 2: Assuming the Lease

If the lessee opts to assume the lease, it essentially agrees to continue the lease, comply with its terms going forward, and cure any defaults. The lessee will identify the defaults to be cured and afford the lessor the opportunity to object to the proposed cure if it is insufficient. The debtor must also compensate the lessor for “any actual pecuniary loss” caused by the debtor’s default and provide the lessor with “adequate assurance of future performance.”

Option 3: Assuming and Assigning (or Selling) the Lease

Notwithstanding any anti-assignment language in the lease or any landlord objections, the debtor can elect to assume the lease and assign or sell it to a third party, as Rite Aid seeks to do with several leases. As with all lease assumptions, the tenant (and its assignee) must cure any outstanding defaults and provide adequate assurances of the assignee’s future performance of its lease obligations.

Additional Protections and Assurances for Shopping Center Lessors

Many, if not most, of the leases Rite-Aid seeks to unload are in retail shopping centers. The Bankruptcy Code provides special protections for shopping center lessors when a debtor assumes and assigns its lease.

Specifically, Section 365(b) requires debtors and assignees to provide the landlord with “adequate assurance” that:

The source of rent and other consideration due under the lease and the financial condition and operating performance of the proposed assignee and its guarantors, if any, will be similar to the financial condition and operating performance of the debtor and its guarantors, if any, as of the time the debtor started its tenancy.
Any percentage of rent due under the lease will not decline substantially.
Assumption or assignment of such lease is subject to all lease provisions, including those relating to radius, location, use, or exclusivity, and the assignment will not breach any such provision contained in any other lease, financing agreement, or master agreement relating to the shopping center.
Assumption or assignment of the lease will not disrupt any tenant mix or balance in such shopping center.

Failure to deliver any such assurances can support a lessor’s objection to any proposed assumption or assignment of the lease.

If you have concerns about your options as a landlord regarding an insolvent or bankrupt tenant or need assistance protecting your rights in a pending bankruptcy proceeding, please contact Anthony D’Artiglio at Ansell.Law.

Law360 Covers Closely Watched Verizon Cell Tower Litigation in Monmouth County

Ansell Grimm October 25, 2023

In a hotly contested and closely watched litigation matter, Verizon Wireless applied to place cell towers along a New Jersey boardwalk in Monmouth County. Verizon sued the county and its board when their request was denied, claiming the denial was not supported by substantial evidence. Proposed Intervenors now seek to join the case, asking the courts to dismiss Verizon’s claims against the county. A recent Law360 article covered the case.

Ansell.Law partner Anthony J. D’Artiglio and associate Layne A. Feldman, attorneys in the Firm’s Litigation Department, represent the intervenors in the case.

Anthony’s practice encompasses complex litigation, bankruptcy, controlled substances and regulatory law, and labor and employment. Layne handles a diverse range of complex commercial and civil litigation matters.

Click here to read the Law360 article (subscription required).

Anthony J. D’Artiglio Elevated to Litigation Team Leader

Ansell Grimm October 18, 2023

Ansell.Law is pleased to announce that partner Anthony J. D’Artiglio has been elevated to Litigation Team Leader for North New Jersey. This new role complements his mentoring and leadership abilities within the Firm. D’Artiglio will manage the Firm’s North New Jersey litigation presence. Additionally, he will work closely with Firmwide Litigation Department Chair Lawrence H. Shapiro to shape the department’s future.

Based in the Firm’s Woodland Park office, D’Artiglio’s practice encompasses litigation, bankruptcy, controlled substances and regulatory law, and labor and employment. A seasoned attorney, he litigates a broad range of commercial matters, including commercial lease disputes, class actions, Consumer Fraud Act claims, corporate and shareholder disputes, employment disputes, and secured property actions. He also routinely represents creditors in bankruptcy matters.

D’Artiglio is licensed in New York and New Jersey. Best Lawyers in America has recognized him as a “One to Watch” since 2021.

Law, Not Lease, Defines Default

Ansell Grimm September 27, 2023

In a victory for landlords dealing with a tenant in bankruptcy, Ansell.Law attorney Anthony D’Artiglio recently secured a ruling in a reported decision that broadly defined the “defaults” tenants must cure in order to assume a lease. The decision in In re Old Market Group Holdings Corp. clarifies that a “default” as set forth in the Bankruptcy Code is given its ordinary meaning, regardless of any narrower definition of default contained in the lease.

The firm represented 400 Walnut Avenue, LLC (“Walnut”), which owned a product distribution center leased by the debtor, Fairway Group Holdings (“Fairway”), a regional grocery store chain. Fairway filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection and sold most of its assets under the confirmed plan of reorganization. This included assigning its lease of Walnut’s property to another supermarket chain according to Section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code. Section 365 permits a debtor-lessee under an unexpired lease to assume (and subsequently assign) that lease if the debtor believes that assumption is in the estate’s best interest. If there is an existing default under the lease, Section 365(b)(1) requires that the debtor cure any such defaults as a prerequisite to assumption, among other obligations of the debtor.

The dispute concerned Fairway’s responsibility, under Section 365(b), to cure defaults under its lease — specifically, its failure to make required repairs — when it assigned that lease. Fairway claimed that it had no obligation to make those repairs as its failure to do so was not a “default” as defined in the lease because Walnut allegedly did not demand that Fairway make those repairs before Fairway filed for Bankruptcy. As such, Fairway asserted that it could not be liable for the cost to make repairs to the property because no “default” — as defined by the Lease — occurred prior to Bankruptcy.

“Any Failure To Perform” = Default

In response, Walnut argued that any notice provision in the lease was irrelevant because a “default” under an assumed lease is given its ordinary meaning pursuant to Section 365, not the terms of the lease, and the outstanding repairs constituted a default as that term is plainly understood — a failure to perform a defined obligation. Accordingly, Fairway should be responsible for the cost of any repairs.

The bankruptcy court rejected Fairway’s position and agreed with the argument put forth by D’Artiglio on behalf of Walnut. The court ruled that: “Both the text and the purposes of [Section 365(b)(1)] compel the conclusion that the statutory term ‘default’ means any failure to perform under the assumed contract or lease, regardless of the definition of default contained in that contract or lease.”

The court went on to note that “Consideration of the purposes of Section 365(b)(1) reinforces the conclusion that the statutory term ‘default’ should be construed to include any failure to perform contractually required obligations.” Citing prior decisions, the court further stated that “The case law is consistent with this plain-meaning reading of the statute. When debtors seek to assume leases or contracts under which they have failed to make required repairs, courts routinely require the debtor to make those repairs — that is, to cure the defaults — as a condition to assumption.”

The interpretation of “default” articulated by the court applies to assumed executory contracts and assumed unexpired leases. The ruling Ansell’s lawyer obtained means that debtors will likely need to cure any failure, shortcoming, or unfulfilled obligation under a lease or contract — whether material or not, whether a “default” as defined in the agreement or not — before they can assume or assign such agreements. This further protects parties, including lessors, whose interests may be adversely affected by an uncured contract breach by a debtor.

If you have any questions about this case or its impact, please contact Anthony D’Artiglio.

Ansell.Law Attorneys Secured Numerous Successful Client Outcomes in Q2 2023

Ansell Grimm June 29, 2023

Ansell.Law attorneys are laser-focused on achieving our clients’ goals. We listen to our clients and craft compelling legal strategies to preserve their business interests. A sampling of our recent successes follows.

Commercial Real Estate

Jonathan Sherman, in collaboration with Melanie Scroble, successfully negotiated multiple commercial leases for cannabis retail in various cities, including Verona and East Orange, New Jersey. In a separate matter, Jonathan successfully completed a corporate restructure for his clients, enabling each LLC member to effectively execute a 1031 Exchange and achieve their desired financial goals.

Jonathan presented to over 100 realtors, providing valuable insights into using the 1031 Exchange process and Delaware Statutory Trust. Jonathan and Melanie Scroble partnered to deliver an informative Commercial Zoom series to more than 100 realtors, covering the acquisition, sale, and leasing of commercial real estate.

Jonathan also shared his expertise at a Coldwell Banker roundtable. Engaging with over 50 residential and commercial brokers, the discussion revolved around the intricacies of buying multi-family properties in New Jersey.

Litigation

Joshua Bauchner, Layne Feldman, and Anthony Sango obtained dismissal of a counterclaim on behalf of our client, a well-known real estate development firm, in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Mercer County. The counterclaim alleged breach of contract, fraud, and negligent misrepresentation. AGA successfully argued that subsequent amendments to the parties’ original agreement defeated the defendants’ counterclaims as a matter of law, securing a dismissal with a prejudice precluding amendment.

Gabriel Blum and Seth Rosenstein secured summary judgment in favor of a firm client in a complex design and construction defect case. The firm convinced the Court that our client only provided job site materials and did not engage in construction work, contrary to the allegations in the Complaint. As New Jersey trial courts often disfavor granting summary judgment, this was a significant win for our client and saved them ongoing defense costs.

Anthony D’Artiglio and Joshua Bauchner successfully represented the purchaser of a substantial portion of an ice cream company’s assets with numerous locations throughout New York and New Jersey. The ice cream company entered into an assignment for the benefit of creditors proceeding where our client won the bid to purchase its IP and equipment while assuming multiple lease locations. We guided the purchaser through the sale’s confirmation, including addressing multiple issues related to liens, transfer of the IP, and landlord disputes.

Joshua Bauchner, Anthony D’Artiglio, and Brian Ashnault are representing a large property management company in a condemnation case in which a New York state agency is acquiring two permanent easements from a Bronx warehouse owned by the client. AGA is guiding its client through the pre-litigation stages of the condemnation process and seeks to secure a multi-million-dollar fair market value award in New York Supreme Court.

Joshua Bauchner, Layne Feldman, and Brian Ashnault obtained dismissal of a counterclaim filed against our client, a retail brokerage firm, in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Bergen County. The counterclaim sought a declaratory judgment regarding a brokerage listing agreement, deeming it unenforceable. AGA successfully argued that the counterclaim did not state sufficient facts and that the legal arguments failed as a matter of law, securing a dismissal with a prejudice precluding amendment.

Other litigation victories include:

Secured possession of a luxury home in Westchester County after years of litigation and compelled a highly favorable settlement, resulting in a windfall for clients and strong profit after selling the property to a third-party purchaser.
Obtained a highly favorable settlement for a contractor client after the homeowner sued, alleging breach of contract and consumer fraud in connection with constructing a pool deck. The firm’s efforts minimized the out-of-pocket costs for the contractor, with its insurance carrier paying most of the limited settlement sum.
Successfully prosecuted action on behalf of an automobile repair shop against a vehicle owner who refused to pay for charges after his insurance carrier failed to extend coverage. The settlement reached was significant and avoided the costs related to protracted litigation.
Initiated litigation against a multinational financial consultancy firm under the Fair Credit Reporting Act following the dissemination of inaccurate information concerning a client. The action was settled pre-litigation on favorable terms to the client.
Filed action on behalf of local businesses after a nationwide energy supplier substantially overbilled for provided electricity. After limited discovery, the firm’s efforts resulted in a substantial monetary payment to the local businesses.
Represented a local property developer in securing declaratory relief pertaining to a shopping center and certain master deed restrictions, permitting the construction and operation of a well-known gas station and convenience store at the subject property.

BANKRUPTCY DEPARTMENT UPDATE – FEBRUARY 2023

Ansell Grimm February 1, 2023

Led by Department Chair James G. Aaron, in coordination with partners Joshua S. Bauchner and Anthony J. D’Artiglio, Ansell’s attorneys are well versed in the intricacies of bankruptcy practice. Our bankruptcy attorneys are here to offer the knowledge and advice about the benefits and detriments of the different types of bankruptcy; Chapter 11, Chapter 13, and Chapter 7 proceedings, all of which should be considered prior to any individual or business filing for bankruptcy. Before filing, our attorneys will provide a complete analysis of our client’s assets and guide them through the establishment of an asset protection plan.

The Firm represents numerous national and state banking institutions, Fortune 500 companies, and many local corporate entities in restructuring corporate debt, and represents both creditors and debtors in all proceedings.

In particular, the Firm represents commercial landlords whose tenants file for bankruptcy. The landlord becomes an estate creditor and has numerous, defined rights under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. As set forth below, Ansell recently experienced significant success on behalf of our landlord/creditor clients protecting their interest in realty and securing against abuse of the bankruptcy process by recalcitrant debtors.

The firm also handles state court insolvency matters, an alternative to federal bankruptcy, known as an assignment for the benefit of creditors (“ABC”). Similar to a Chapter 7 liquidation proceeding, an ABC permits a debtor to assign its claims to an assignee — here, an attorney with the Firm appointed by the Court — to pursue preferential and fraudulent claims under state law.

By example, here are some of the Firm’s recent successes in this practice area:

Recovery for Landlord in Debtor’s Attempt to Escape Obligations

Partner Anthony J. D’Artiglio and Shareholder and department co-chair Joshua S. Bauchner recently secured a favorable decision from the Bankruptcy Court in the Southern District of New York in the Fairway Group Holdings Corp. matter. Our client, Debtor’s property owner, filed a multi-million-dollar cure objection asserting that Debtor had failed to repair and maintain the property in accord with its lease obligations, and thus needed to make the necessary repairs or pay for the repairs as part of the lease assumption and assignment. Debtor sought to dismiss the cure objection, arguing that the new tenant was responsible for all pre-assignment defects as part of the lease’s ongoing repair and maintenance obligations and that, because property owner did not issue a default notice pre-petition pursuant to a lease provision, property owner could not claim that a “default” existed requiring cure pursuant to the Bankruptcy Code. The Court resoundingly rejected Debtor’s arguments, holding that (i) Debtor is responsible for all necessary pre-assignment repairs pursuant to the lease because the buyer took the property “free and clear” of any and all defaults by Debtor at the time of the assignment, and (ii) landlord was not required to formally notice a “default” under the lease to seek the cost of repairs from Debtor for any pre-assignment condition in need of repair particular where, as here, Debtor was on notice upon the filing of the cure objection. As a result of this favorable ruling, our client can recover millions of dollars in repair costs.

Conversion to a Chapter 7 and Vacature of Extension of Automatic Stay

The Firm successfully compelled conversion of a meritless Chapter 11 to a Chapter 7 proceeding and convinced the Court to vacate an extension of the automatic stay to the principal’s of the Debtor company. Debtor filed a Chapter 11 petition in the District of New Jersey just before it and its principals were scheduled to face trial in the Western District of Missouri on multi-million dollar fraudulent scheme related to the sale of a business. Led by Joshua S Bauchner and Anthony J. D’Artiglio, the firm successfully convinced the Court to vacate an extension of the automatic stay to the principals of Debtor who sought to utilize the Bankruptcy to shield themselves from liability. Furthermore, we vigorously opposed confirmation of a meritless Plan of Reorganization, culminating in Debtor voluntarily converting its Chapter 11 reorganization to a Chapter 7 liquidation requiring the appointment of a Trustee to pursue our client’s and other creditors’ interests. As a result, the adversary complaint and related Bankruptcy matters were dismissed in New Jersey permitting the action to proceed to trial in Missouri.

Protection for Landlord from Tenant Bankruptcy

Partner Anthony J. D’Artiglio and Shareholder Joshua S. Bauchner secured an extremely favorable settlement on behalf of a property owner whose tenant filed for bankruptcy after failing to make any rent payments over a prolonged period. Following our filing of an application to compel lease rejection or for relief from the automatic stay, the tenant agreed to pay outstanding rent and additional rent, our client’s attorneys’ fees and costs, and to increase the security deposit as a condition of assumption of the lease, ensuring the property owner was not harmed by the tenant’s bankruptcy filing.

Relief for Landlord from Automatic Bankruptcy Stay

Partner Anthony J. D’Artiglio and Shareholder Joshua S. Bauchner successfully secured relief from the automatic bankruptcy stay for a landlord whose tenant had sublet the property without authorization, failed to pay substantial rent, and additional rent due and owing. We successfully convinced the Court to order the tenant to make post-petition payments on an ongoing basis and to lift the automatic stay to permit the property owner to pursue the tenant for damages and eviction in State Court while the bankruptcy remained pending.

For additional information concerning Ansell’s Bankruptcy Department, please contact us at (973) 247-9000, or email James G. Aaron (jga@ansellgrimm.com), Joshua S. Bauchner (jb@ansellgrimm.com), or Anthony J. D’Artiglio (ajd@ansellgrimm.com).

About Ansell Grimm & Aaron, PC
Ansell Grimm & Aaron, PC was founded in 1929 and has a long history of delivering for clients who come to us to resolve legal matters that are often urgent, stressful, and of great importance. A general practice law firm, Ansell Grimm & Aaron is powered by experienced attorneys who understand that the best outcome is the one that serves the needs of each client.

The above is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Transmission of the materials and information contained herein is not intended to create, and receipt thereof does not constitute the formation of, an attorney-client relationship. Attorney advertising.

Anthony J. D’Artiglio

Recovery for Landlord in Debtor’s Attempt to Escape Obligations

Conversion to a Chapter 7 and Vacature of Extension of Automatic Stay

Protection for Landlord from Tenant Bankruptcy

Relief for Landlord from Automatic Bankruptcy Stay

Recent Posts