Klass in the News: Yoko Ono’s publicist sues Eataly for $20M after bouncer ‘beatdown’

Posted on by
By Julia Marsh and Natasha Velez
opens in a new windowPageSix

August 29, 2014 | 11:52am

Maybe the security guards at Mario Batali‘s Eataly need to give peace a chance.

Yoko Ono‘s publicist is suing the Manhattan pasta emporium for at least $20 million after he was allegedly beaten up by bouncers, thrown through a glass window and then called a “p—–” and a “f—–.”

Kip Kouri, head of Tell All Your Friends PR, was trying to get a table at Eataly’s popular rooftop beer garden Birreria on July 17 when he was “violently assaulted by” 10 unnamed security guards, according to his Manhattan civil suit.

His attorney, Richard Klass, told The Post his client was at the Fifth Avenue eatery with his boyfriend, sister and stepmother and got into an argument with the hostess about his reservation…. opens in a new window(more)

copyr. 2014 Richard A. Klass, Esq.
The firm’s website: www.CourtStreetLaw.com
Richard A. Klass, Esq., maintains a law firm engaged in civil litigation in Brooklyn Heights, New York.
He may be reached at (718) COURT-ST or e-ml to RichKlass@courtstreetlaw.comcreate new email with any questions.
Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

R. A. Klass
Your Court Street Lawyer

Previous post
Next post

Bankruptcy: an overview

Posted on by

It is unavoidable to conclude, from the news, that people in the United States are in pain! Financial pain and hurt!

Tens of millions of people in this country suffer from the strains of debt: Mortgage Debt, Credit Card Debt, Auto Finance Debt, Tax Debt, Student Loan Debt!

For some of these people, filing bankruptcy may be the best option to dig out of a bad situation. A consultation with a competent attorney may be the first step in digging out.

What is bankruptcy?

Bankruptcy is a concept as old as the Bible. In biblical times, in the Jubilee Year, all debts owed to creditors would be forgiven. In our United States Constitution, the privilege of filing for bankruptcy is inscribed. While some people still perceive there being a great stigma in filing for bankruptcy protection, most people recognize that it is not only legally mandated, but is well-rooted in good ethical and moral behavior.

The term “Bankruptcy” refers to a proceeding in a special court called the “United States Bankruptcy Court” in which a person (the “debtor”) files a “petition” and obtains “relief” from the court. The petition is a document which lists four broad categories of information about the debtor:

  1. Assets
  2. Debts
  3. Income
  4. Expenses

The bankruptcy process, an overview:

After the petition is filed with the court, the debtor is interviewed by a court-appointed trustee, who inquires as to the circumstances that led up to bankruptcy and determines whether there are any assets to administer on behalf of creditors. The end result of a bankruptcy case is the “discharge” of debts.

In order to prepare for the decision as to whether bankruptcy is appropriate, the person should assemble various documents, such as tax returns, paystubs, account statements for all debts, appraisals of property, deeds or title to property, and bank statements.

Through the bankruptcy process, the debtor may be permitted to retain property which is “exempt” from creditors. There are various exemptions under law which permit a debtor to keep property, such as household furnishings, homestead exemption in real estate, pensions, and other items. The skilled practitioner will assist in finding exemptions for most or all of the debtor’s property. If property is not exempt, then the trustee can sell it and pay over the sale proceeds to creditors.

For many people, the decision to file bankruptcy is motivated by one or both of the following two factors:

  1. Discharge of debt: Most debts will be discharged. This means that the debtor will no longer be obligated to repay the debts. Some debts are not dischargeable because they are exceptions to the rule, such as domestic support obligations, tax debt, or government fines. However, even some of these seemingly nondischargeable debts may still be discharged. Other debts may be “secured” on property for collateral for the loan, such as a home mortgage or auto finance loan. These debts might not be discharged because the creditor may seek to take back the property.
  2. Automatic stay: The other major reason people file for bankruptcy is to get the benefit of the “Stop” sign – the automatic stay. Sometimes, creditors are calling the debtor day and night to get payments on accounts; sometimes, there is a garnishment on the debtor’s wages; and sometimes, bank accounts are being seized. Once the bankruptcy is filed, creditors are “stayed” or stopped from pursuing the debtor further. For many debtors, this is quite a relief!

There are two general types of bankruptcy cases:

The first type is a Chapter 7 bankruptcy, also known as a “liquidation proceeding” or “straight bankruptcy.” In this case, the debtor turns over to the trustee all non-exempt assets, in order for the assets to be liquidated or sold by the trustee to pay creditors. It is no secret that 95% of personal bankruptcies are “No Asset” cases, in which the debtor has no non-exempt assets to turn over to the trustee.

The second type is a “Reorganization” proceeding, which can be filed under Chapter 9 (municipalities); Chapter 11 (corporate entities and larger-debt cases); Chapter 12 (family farmers); and Chapter 13 (individual wage-earner cases). In a reorganization case, the debtor has non-exempt assets he wants to keep, such as a home, and proposes a plan to repay creditors a certain amount of money over a certain term.

If you have questions concerning bankruptcy, please feel free to contact the law offices of Richard A. Klass, Esq. by phone or e-mail for more information.

copyr. 2014 Richard A. Klass, Esq.
The firm’s website: www.CourtStreetLaw.com
Richard A. Klass, Esq., maintains a law firm engaged in civil litigation in Brooklyn Heights, New York.
He may be reached at (718) COURT-ST or e-ml to RichKlass@courtstreetlaw.comcreate new email with any questions.
Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

R. A. Klass
Your Court Street Lawyer

Previous post
Next post

Repairs are a covered activity under the Labor Law

Posted on by

Binding precedents of the Court of Appeals, as well as the Appellate Division, First and Second Department hold that a worker assigned by his employer to perform repairs to a damaged or inoperable structure are a covered activity for purposes of the Labor Law, not merely routine maintenance. See Prats v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, 100 N.Y.2d 878, 880, 768 N.Y.S.2d 178, 179, 800 N.E.2d 351, 352 (2003); Riccio v. NHT Owners, LLC, 51 A.D.3d 897, 899, 858 N.Y.S.2d 363, 366 (2d Dep’t 2008); Rios v. WVF Paramount 545 Property, LLP, 36 A.D.3d 511, 828 N.Y.S.2d 368, 369 (1st Dep’t 2007); Bruce v. Fashion Square Associates, 8 A.D.3d 1053, 1054, 778 N.Y.S.2d 823, 824 (4th Dep’t 2004); Kerr v. Louisville Housing, Inc., 2 A.D.3d 924, 926, 769 N.Y.S.2d 616, 619 (3d Dep’t 2003); Craft v. Clark Trading Corp., 257 A.D.2d 886, 887, 684 N.Y.S.2d 48, 49-50 (3d Dep’t 1999); Holka v. Mt. Mercy Academy, 221 A.D.2d 949, 949, 634 N.Y.S.2d 310, 311 (4th Dep’t 1995).

Binding precedents from all four Departments of the Appellate Division recognize that welding is a covered activity for purposes of the Labor Law. SeeElkins v. Robbins & Cowan, Inc., 237 A.D.2d 404, 405-406, 655 N.Y.S.2d 563, 564 (2d Dep’t 1997); Allen v. Telergy Network Services, Inc., 52 A.D.3d 1094, 1097, 860 N.Y.S.2d 299, 303 (3d Dep’t 2008); Spadola v. 260/261 Madison Equities Corp., 19 A.D.3d 321, 323, 798 N.Y.S.2d 38, 40 (1st Dep’t 2005); Shields v. General Elec. Co., 3 A.D.3d 715, 717, 771 N.Y.S.2d 249, 252 (3d Dep’t 2004); Baum v. Ciminelli-Cowper Co., Inc., 300 A.D.2d 1028, 1029, 755 N.Y.S.2d 138, 139 (4th Dep’t 2002); Noble v. AMCC Corp., 277 A.D.2d 20, 714 N.Y.S.2d 495, 496 (1st Dep’t 2000).
 
Binding Appellate Division, First Department precedents and precedents in Kings County hold that “[a]n eight feet high chain link fence is a structure within the meaning of Labor Law Section 240(1) and, an injury occurring while in the course of [repairing, erecting or] removing it is a covered activity [citations omitted].” Romero v. Trump Village Apartments Two LLC, 20 Misc.3d 1145(A), 873 N.Y.S.2d 237 (Table) 2008 WL 4274483*1 (Sup.Ct. Kings County September 16, 2008); see Carino v. Webster Place Associates, LP, 45 A.D.3d 351, 352, 845 N.Y.S.2d 60, 61 (1st Dep’t 2007); see Riccio, 51 A.D.3d at 899, 858 N.Y.S.2d at 366; Rios, 36 A.D.3d at 511, 828 N.Y.S.2d at 369), which required covered welding (see Elkins, 237 A.D.2d at 405-406, 655 N.Y.S.2d at 564; Allen, 52 A.D.3d at 1097, 860 N.Y.S.2d at 303; Spadola, 19 A.D.3d at 323, 798 N.Y.S.2d at 40), on a fence, a structure for purposes of the Labor Law. (see Carino, 45 A.D.3d at 352, 845 N.Y.S.2d at 61; Romero, 20 Misc.3d 1145(A), 873 N.Y.S.2d 237 (Table) 2008 WL 4274483 at *1).
 
An assertion that, even if a worker’s activities were otherwise a covered repair, Labor Law § 240(1) would not apply because there was no ongoing construction project would also fail. The Court of Appeals, in its landmark Joblon decision, as well as precedents binding Appellate Division, First and Second Department precedents expressly reject the defendant-appellant’s argument, holding that where the worker is performing otherwise “protected activities under Labor Law § 240(1)”, expressly including repairs, alteration of a structure, or painting, said work “need not have been incidental to the other listed activities, such as construction, repair, or alteration, to be covered [citations omitted].” Loreto v. 376 St. Johns Condominium, Inc., 15 A.D.3d 454, 455, 790 N.Y.S.2d 190, 191-192 (2d Dep’t 2005) (“The scraping and painting performed by the plaintiff were protected activities under Labor Law § 240(1) and need not have been incidental to the other listed activities, such as construction, repair, or alteration, to be covered (see De Oliveira v. Little John’s Moving, 289 A.D.2d 108, 734 N.Y.S.2d 165, citing Perez v. Spring Cr. Assocs., 265 A.D.2d 314, 696 N.Y.S.2d 468; Livecchi v. Eastman Kodak Co., 258 A.D.2d 916, 685 N.Y.S.2d 515).”); see Joblon v. Solow, 91 N.Y.2d 457, 463-464, 672 N.Y.S.2d 286, 289-290, 695 N.E.2d 237, 240-241 (1998); Blair v. Cristani, 296 A.D.2d 471, 472, 745 N.Y.S.2d 468, 468-469 (2d Dep’t 2002); De Oliveira v. Little John’s Moving, Inc., 289 A.D.2d 108, 734 N.Y.S.2d 165, 166 (1st Dep’t 2001) (“The scraping performed by plaintiff is encompassed within the term “painting” in section 240(1) (see, Perez v. Spring Creek Assocs., 265 A.D.2d 314, 696 N.Y.S.2d 468; Livecchi v. Eastman Kodak Co., 258 A.D.2d 916, 685 N.Y.S.2d 515), and need not have been incidental to the other listed activities, such as construction, repair or alteration, to be covered (cf., Bustamante v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 241 A.D.2d 327, 659 N.Y.S.2d 284; Chapman v. International Bus. Machs., 253 A.D.2d 123, 127, 686 N.Y.S.2d 888).”); Cornacchione v. Clark Concrete Co., Inc., 278 A.D.2d 800, 801, 723 N.Y.S.2d 572, 573 (4th Dep’t 2000); Chapman v. International Business Machines Corporation, 253 A.D.2d 123, 127, 686 N.Y.S.2d 888, 891-892 (3d Dep’t 1999) (“We note that, under this statute, ‘cleaning * * * of a building or structure’ is listed in the alternative to a series of other covered activity, i.e. covered activities include the ‘erection, demolition, repairing, altering, painting, cleaning or pointing of a building’ (Labor Law Section 240[1] [emphasis supplied] ). In our view, under a plain reading of the statute, there is no requirement or condition that commercial cleaning be incidental to the other listed activities, such as construction, repair or alteration activity, to be covered.”). In its landmark decision in Joblon, 91 N.Y.2d at 463-464, 672 N.Y.S.2d at 289-290, 695 N.E.2d at 240-241, the Court of Appeals, expressly rejecting this argument, held as follows:

“Thus, defendants suggest that a guiding principle for courts should be to examine the context of the work leading to the injury, and only when it is performed as part of a building construction job should Labor Law § 240(1) liability attach.
Such a rule would, of course, ignore prior holdings that workers injured while cleaning a railway car (Gordon v. Eastern Ry. Supply, 82 N.Y.2d 555, 606 N.Y.S.2d 127, 626 N.E.2d 912, supra ), repairing an electrical sign (Izrailev v. Ficarra Furniture, 70 N.Y.2d 813, 523 N.Y.S.2d 432, 517 N.E.2d 1318) or painting a house (Rivers v. Sauter, 26 N.Y.2d 260, 309 N.Y.S.2d 897, 258 N.E.2d 191) come within the ambit of the statute even though they were not working at a building construction site. Furthermore, we have already defined a ‘structure,’ for purposes of Labor Law § 240(1), as ‘’any production or piece of work artificially built up or composed of parts joined together in some definite manner’’ (Lewis Moors v. Contel of N.Y., 78 N.Y.2d 942, 943, 573 N.Y.S.2d 636, 578 N.E.2d 434). Now to limit the statute’s reach to work performed on a construction site would eliminate possible recovery for work performed on many structures falling within the definition of that term but found off construction sites (see, e.g., id. [telephone pole]; Gordon v. Eastern Ry. Supply, 82 N.Y.2d 555, 606 N.Y.S.2d 127, 626 N.E.2d 912, supra [railway car] ).”

 
In Cornacchione, 278 A.D.2d at 801, 723 N.Y.S.2d at 573, the Appellate Division, Fourth Department held that other statutorily enumerated activities, such as painting or repairs, need not be incidental to other listed activities, such as construction or renovation, to fit within Labor Law §§ 240(1) or 241(6):

“Finally, we conclude that the painting work being performed by plaintiff’s decedent was an activity covered by Labor Law § 240(1) and § 241(6). “[T]here is no requirement or condition that [painting] be incidental to the other listed activities, such as construction, repair or alteration activity, to be covered” (Chapman v. International Bus. Machs., 253 A.D.2d 123, 127, 686 N.Y.S.2d 888; see also, Bustamante v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 241 A.D.2d 327, 659 N.Y.S.2d 284). We therefore modify the order in appeal No. 1 by denying the motion of Piscitell in part and reinstating the Labor Law § 241(6) claim against it.”

 
In Blair, 296 A.D.2d at 472, 745 N.Y.S.2d at 468-469, the Appellate Division, Second Department, citing Cornacchione, 278 A.D.2d at 801, 723 N.Y.S.2d at 573, identically held that painting, one of the statutorily enumerated activities, like performing repairs, was a covered activity for purposes of Labor Law § 241(6), independent of any construction or renovation:

“The plaintiff is also entitled to summary judgment on the cause of action pursuant to Labor Law § 241(6) and the branch of the defendant’s motion which was to dismiss that cause of action should have been denied. Contrary to the determination of the Supreme Court, the activity in which the plaintiff was engaged when he was injured falls within the scope of Labor Law § 241(6) (see 12 NYCRR 23-1.4[b][13]; Cornacchione v. Clark Concrete Co., 278 A.D.2d 800, 723 N.Y.S.2d 572; Vernieri v. Empire Realty Co., 219 A.D.2d 593, 595, 631 N.Y.S.2d 378).”

 
It is irrelevant whether repair work, a statutorily enumerated activity, took place in a construction context or incidental to a construction or renovation project (see Blair, 296 A.D.2d at 472, 745 N.Y.S.2d at 468-469; Cornacchione, 278 A.D.2d at 801, 723 N.Y.S.2d at 573), as repairing a broken fence constitutes a statutorily enumerated covered repair for purposes of both Labor Law § 240(1) (see Beehner, 3 N.Y.3d at 752, 821 N.E.2d at 941, 788 N.Y.S.2d at 637; Prats, 100 N.Y.2d at 880, 882, 768 N.Y.S.2d at 179, 181, 800 N.E.2d at 352, 354; Juchniewicz, 46 A.D.3d at 624, 848 N.Y.S.2d at 257-258; Bruce, 8 A.D.3d at 1054, 778 N.Y.S.2d at 824; Franco, 280 A.D.2d at 409-410, 721 N.Y.S.2d at 5).

copyr. 2014 Richard A. Klass, Esq.
The firm’s website: www.CourtStreetLaw.com
Richard A. Klass, Esq., maintains a law firm engaged in civil litigation in Brooklyn Heights, New York.
He may be reached at (718) COURT-ST or e-ml to RichKlass@courtstreetlaw.comcreate new email with any questions.
Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

R. A. Klass
Your Court Street Lawyer

Previous post
Next post

Klass in the News: Eataly sued by Yoko Ono’s public relations agent, who restaurant rep says was ‘visibly intoxicated’

Posted on by

Kip Kouri claims he was ‘thrown’ through a plate glass window by bouncers who also made homophobic remarks. In a statement, restaurant spokeswoman Cristina Villa said Kouri was ‘acting as a potential threat to others.’

By Barbara Ross and Corky Siemaszko
New York Daily News
Published: August 29, 2014, 11:29am
Updated: August 30, 2014, 12:14am

What a pane!

Yoko Ono’s flack claims he was “thrown” through a plate glass window by three bigoted bouncers at celebrity chef Mario Batali’s eatery Eataly, and is now suing the operation for $10 million.

Kip Kouri claims in court papers the strongmen called him a “p—y” and a “f—-t” and that he suffered a severe gash on one leg that required 60 stitches to close.

“It took a significant amount of force to do what they did,” Kouri’s lawyer, Richard Klass, said Friday. “This was a thick window.”

copyr. 2014 Richard A. Klass, Esq.
The firm’s website: www.CourtStreetLaw.com
Richard A. Klass, Esq., maintains a law firm engaged in civil litigation in Brooklyn Heights, New York.
He may be reached at (718) COURT-ST or e-ml to RichKlass@courtstreetlaw.comcreate new email with any questions.
Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

R. A. Klass
Your Court Street Lawyer

Previous post
Next post

Pay the Worker on the Day He (or She) Works

Posted on by
We can do it!, ca. 1942 - ca. 1943; Creator(s): Office for Emergency Management. War Production Board.

This guiding principle is so important that it is laid out in several passages throughout the Bible. It is incumbent upon an employer to pay the wages of its employees on a timely basis. If the employer does not pay its employees, New York State law provides employees with significant remedies, including an entitlement to monetary penalties against the employer over and above the unpaid wages and the recovery of attorney’s fees.

Some teachers in a private religious school were not paid their salaries for several months. The school’s administration claimed that, due to the nonpayment of tuition by a large number of the parent body, the school could not pay these teachers. In the meantime, however, the school continued to pay some of its teachers, business-as-usual. One of the teachers who was not paid her salary hired Richard A. Klass, Your Court Street Lawyer, to help recover her unpaid wages.

100% liquidated damages under NY’s labor law

An action was brought on behalf of the teacher against the private religious school for the unpaid wages. The complaint also sought the additional amount of liquidated damages that may be awarded to an employee for wages owed by an employer on an unpaid wage claim. The entitlement to this additional element of damages (“equal to 100% of the total amount of the wages found to be due”) and reasonable attorney’s fees are provided for in New York State Labor Law §198(1-a). Specifically, Labor Law §198(1-a) provides, in relevant part:

In any action instituted in the courts upon a wage claim by an employee or the commissioner in which the employee prevails, the court shall allow such employee to recover the full amount of any underpayment, all reasonable attorney’s fees, prejudgment interest as required under the civil practice law and rules, and, unless the employer proves a good faith basis to believe that its underpayment of wages was in compliance with the law, an additional amount as liquidated damages equal to one hundred percent of the total amount of the wages found to be due.

Under the above statute, an employer must be able to prove that it had a “good faith basis” to believe that its failure to pay its employees was in compliance with the law in order to avoid an award of liquidated damages. In this case, it was urged that the school had no valid basis for not paying its teachers.

Religious school can be sued in secular court

The religious school argued that the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution (separation of church and state) barred the government’s excessive entanglement in religion—in essence, stating that this dispute belonged in a rabbinical court. In response to this argument, it was urged that this case was not about religion; it was squarely and fundamentally about the breach of an employment contract.

Courts can apply ‘neutral principles of law’ to dispute

Respecting the place of religion in American society, courts will generally decline to involve themselves in disputes involving religious institutions except under limited circumstances. New York State’s highest court, the Court of Appeals, in Congregation Yetev Lev D’Satmar, Inc. v. Kahan, held that where the matter to be decided does not involve questions of discipline and doctrine but is a temporal matter, a court may inquire and consider the same in the light of the civil contractual rights and obligations of the parties. The Court of Appeals stated, “Civil disputes involving religious parties or institutions may be adjudicated without offending the First Amendment as long as neutral principles of law are the basis for their resolution (see First Presbyterian Church of Schenectady v. United Presbyterian Church in the United States of America). The “neutral principles of law” approach requires the court to apply objective, well-established principles of secular law to the issues.”
In Saffra v. Rockwood Park Jewish Center, Inc., the court held that issues surrounding a rabbi’s employment agreement with a synagogue were not an ecclesiastical matter but rather a matter dealing with a “mundane” contract to be construed by a court. New York law recognizes that “a religious corporation is liable on its contracts the same as any other corporation and, generally, questions concerning the contractual liability of a religious corporation are controlled by the principles governing the contractual powers and liability of corporations generally.” See, 92 N.Y. Jur.2d Religious Organizations, §16. Accordingly, the fact that the school was a religious school would be irrelevant to its liability for breaching its contractual obligations to its teachers for unpaid wages.
There were no religious issues or doctrines presented in this case; the action was brought solely to enforce the teacher’s contract rights to recover her unpaid wages for the period of time that she had already performed under her teaching contract. Faced with the arguments put forth by the teacher, the school relented and paid over $23,000 of back wages owed to the teacher, along with all of her legal fees and expenses.

copyr. 2014 Richard A. Klass, Esq.
The firm’s website: www.CourtStreetLaw.com
Richard A. Klass, Esq., maintains a law firm engaged in civil litigation in Brooklyn Heights, New York.
He may be reached at (718) COURT-ST or e-ml to RichKlass@courtstreetlaw.comcreate new email with any questions.
Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Credits: Photo of Richard Klass by Robert Matson, copyr. Richard A. Klass, 2011.
Marketing services by The Innovation Works, Inc. www.TheInnovationWorks.com.
Image on page one: We can do it!, ca. 1942 – ca. 1943; Creator(s): Office for Emergency Management. War Production Board. 

R. A. Klass
Your Court Street Lawyer

Previous post
Next post