Commercial disputes rarely stay confined to a single lawsuit. In closely held businesses, especially where ownership, financing, and operations overlap, disputes can unfold across multiple proceedings, evolve over time, and require strategic recalibration as circumstances change.

The following matters illustrate how the firm stepped into ongoing litigation, stabilized cases that had become procedurally complex, and pursued a broader strategy to protect our clients’ interests across trial-level litigation and appellate proceedings.

In D’Angelo, on behalf of Esme Designs, LLC v. Kwoka et al., the plaintiff pursued substantial financial damages arising from a business dispute litigated in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County (Commercial Division). The matter ultimately resulted in a judgment following a court-ordered inquest, with damages just shy of $700,000, established through detailed expert testimony and evidentiary submissions.

In commercial litigation, obtaining a judgment is often viewed as the finish line. In practice, it is frequently the beginning of a second, and sometimes more complex, phase of the case: enforcement.

Following the entry of judgment in D’Angelo, on behalf of Esme Designs, LLC v. Kwoka et al., the plaintiff faced the challenge common to many business disputes: defendants who continued to resist compliance despite a clear court ruling. What followed was a multi-stage enforcement effort illustrating why judgment enforcement requires persistence, strategic escalation, and a willingness to return to court repeatedly when necessary.

Court orders are not suggestions. Yet in business litigation, it is not uncommon for defendants to test the limits of compliance — particularly after a judgment or injunction has already been entered against them.

In D’Angelo, on behalf of Esme Designs, LLC v. Kwoka et al., enforcement efforts did not end with the issuance of clear judicial directives. Instead, continued resistance required a measured but persistent escalation of remedies, illustrating how enforcement often unfolds in real-world commercial disputes.

The number one source of attorney disciplinary complaints is when attorneys do not return client phone calls or e-mails. If this is happening to you, don’t delay. Seek a second opinion on your case. Our firm offers no-cost consultations on many types of ongoing cases.

Legal matters rarely fail because of a single dramatic mistake. More often, they deteriorate gradually — missed deadlines, unclear communication, strategic drift, or a client left in the dark.

At our firm, we are often retained after a case has already been underway for months — sometimes years. In reviewing court dockets and litigation histories, we frequently observe recurring issues that can materially affect outcomes.

This post addresses:

1. Common attorney-side missteps

2. Practical steps clients can take to stay informed and protect their interests

New York, May 19, 2022 — Jones Law Firm, P.C., a civil litigation firm based in New York City, has won an appeal in a New York Anti-SLAPP lawsuit, modifying the trial court’s original decision and awarding the firm attorneys’ fees and damages without costs.

How Our Firm Successfully Opposed a Motion for Summary Judgment:

In today’s business landscape, many small companies face significant financial challenges, particularly when it comes to securing necessary capital. This financial pressure has given rise to Merchant Cash Advances (MCAs), which are often marketed as quick liquidity solutions for businesses in need. However, not all MCAs are what they appear to be, and some, as our recent case demonstrates, cross the line into predatory lending.

In this recent case, we had the privilege of representing Suburban Waste Services, Inc., owned by Mr. David Dienno and Ms. Christina Bizzari, against claims brought by Kapitus Servicing, Inc. The lawsuit revolved around two Revenue-Based Factoring Agreements, where Kapitus alleged that our client had defaulted on their obligations, leading to a demand for over $353,000, including fees for breach of contract and returned payments.

Case Analysis:

Implied Covenant of Good Faith in Business Contracts Introduction The New York Court of Appeals recently ruled on a significant business law case, Singh v. City of New York (2023), which holds important lessons for contract law, particularly regarding the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. This decision highlights the limitations of this covenant when clear contractual disclaimers are in place. Overview of the Case The case revolved around the claim by taxi medallion owners that New York City devalued their medallions by allowing ride-sharing services like Uber and Lyft to operate without stringent regulation. Plaintiffs argued that this undermined the implicit guarantee of good faith and fair dealing tied to the original contracts for medallion purchases.