Itkowitz & Harwood represented new owner of residential building in Park Slope, Brooklyn where Rent Controlled Tenant substantially altered the apartment without landlord's consent and faced termination of her tenancy. Tenant's rent had not been raised in approximately twenty years. Landlord and tenant agreed to settle the matter by having landlord pay tenant for the alterations, and thereafter charge tenant a substantial Individual Apartment Increase based on such improvements, which nearly tripled tenant's rent and will facilitate regular, lawful increases going forward. The Division of Housing and Community Renewal approved the settlement.

I&H negotiated a $1.25 Million Dollar buyout of a long-standing loft tenant occupying approximately 2,000 sq. feet. This was a six-story loft building in Tribeca. A developer was seeking to purchase the building and reposition it. The selling Landlord and Tenant (I&H's client) sued one another. Landlord contended the loft was not Tenant's primary residence. The Landlord, however, had failed to provide essential services and the building was in dismal shape. Although Tenant could have continued operating his business there, Tenant and Tenant's disabled spouse were constructively evicted from the premises as a residence. The incoming developer, recognizing the serious nature of the provable claims against the departing Landlord, together with the determination of Tenant to get a fair number for a buyout of Tenant's rights, resulted in I&H negotiating a very satisfactory result for the Tenant.

I&H obtained an $80,000.00 settlement for a Rent Stabilized tenant who was wrongfully evicted for an alleged default in a proceeding for non-payment of rent. The Housing Court refused to restore the tenant to possession of her apartment. On appeal, I&H obtained an order from the appellate court restoring the tenant to possession of her apartment. I&H then initiated a suit in Supreme Court on the tenant's behalf for compensatory, punitive and treble damages as a result of the wrongful eviction, and obtained an order for a preference for an immediate trial based on the tenant's advanced age. Subsequently, I&H obtained a ruling in the Housing Court that tenant was entitled to have landlord pay her legal fees. The case settled on the eve of the legal fee hearing.

I&H obtained a $60,000.00 settlement on behalf of one of New York City's largest managing agents whose tenant, an IT placement firm, abandoned the premises during the course of the lease term. The tenant left the premises owing rent arrears, as well as rent on an ongoing basis, but ultimately agreed to settle the matter on the day of trial. The lease was personally guaranteed by two principals; however, they delayed in settling until the day of trial. They paid principal and interest and a portion of the attorneys' fees to settle the case.

I&H obtained a $900,000.00 settlement for a commercial tenant who was wrongfully evicted from its premises. Landlord cut off elevator services to the 16th floor where tenant was operating a film studio, and contended that such cut-off was justified because the lease only allowed the premises to be used for the manufacture of furniture. I&H contended that the prior landlord waived its right to object to the use of the premises as a film studio because the prior landlord implicitly consented to such use. I&H sought an injunction in the Supreme Court to compel landlord to restore elevator service. When the Supreme Court denied such application, I&H appealed and won. I&H obtained the injunction in the appellate court, causing restoration of the elevator service, and sought compensatory and punitive damages against landlord. The case settled just as I&H was about to pick a jury.

I&H obtained a $2,000,000.00 settlement on behalf of a client whose mansion was destroyed by fire just prior to its completion. The settlement was obtained from a general contractor who I&H sought to hold responsible for failing to properly supervise and control the activities of a sub-contractor. I&H contended that the sub-contractor, who was under insured and who was applying lacquer to wood finishes on the day of the fire, failed to properly ventilate the premises and clean up after its work, thereby causing spontaneous combustion. Typically in cases where the entire premises burns down, it is difficult to prove liability because evidence is destroyed as well. Here, however, I&H used receipts for the products used by the sub-contractor to ascertain the product ingredients and obtain the manufacturer's warnings. I&H had this evidence evaluated by a nationally reputed fire-safety consulting firm, which was able to model how the fire occurred. Faced with such evidence, including expert analysis, the general contractor settled the case on the eve of trial.

I&H obtained a $300,000.00 settlement for a violinist injured in an auto accident.