Partner Daniel S. Eichhorn Prevents Imminent Turnover of Charity Client’s Funds, Unfreezes Bank Account and Obtains Summary Judgment Dismissing Lawsuit with Prejudice for Charity Client

Paul N. Ambrose, Jr., Esq., of Cullen and Dykman LLP, was contacted by a small New Jersey Nonprofit that provides rental assistance to former homeless individuals to assist them in paying their rent. A landlord had filed suit against the Charity claiming the Charity had guaranteed the payment of rent of one of the individuals that the Charity had provided rental assistance and that the Charity was responsible for certain unpaid rent. When the Charity contacted Mr. Ambrose, judgment had already been entered against the Charity, their bank account had already been levied upon and the Landlord had already filed a motion with the Court seeking that the Charity’s frozen funds be turned over to the Landlord to pay the judgment.

Paul N. Ambrose, Jr. Esq, referred the matter to Daniel S. Eichhorn, a partner in the firm’s Commercial Litigation Department. Mr. Eichhorn immediately filed opposition to the Landlord’s motion seeking to turn over the Charity’s funds and a cross-motion to vacate the bank levy and to vacate the judgment entered against the Charity. In response, the Court denied the Landlord’s motion to turnover the Charity’s funds to the Landlord, and the Court granted the motion to vacate both the bank levy and the default judgment.

After the completion of discovery, Mr. Eichhorn filed a motion for summary judgment to dismiss all the claims in the Landlord’s lawsuit against the Charity. The motion for summary judgment set forth that the Landlord’s claim based on the alleged guaranty was in violation of the statute of frauds, which requires that guarantees of the debts of others, including rental payments, must be in writing. It was the Charity’s position that there was no guaranty at all, and there was no writing evidencing any alleged guaranty. The Landlord responded to the motion for summary judgment by raising in its opposition a slew of new claims against the Charity in an attempt to overcome the statute of frauds. In the reply to the Landlord’s opposition and at oral argument, Mr. Eichhorn emphasized that the statute of frauds barred the Landlord’s claims, and that it was improper as a matter of law for the Landlord to raise new causes of action in its Opposition in an effort to defeat summary judgment. After hearing argument, the Court ruled in favor of Charity dismissing all the claims against it with prejudice. In its decision in favor of the Charity, the Court agreed that the statute of frauds barred the Landlord’s claim based on the alleged guaranty and that the law did not permit the raising of new causes of action in an effort to defeat a motion for summary judgment.

Cullen and Dykman LLP is proud and pleased that it was able to step in and help this Charity in its time of need, when the Charity itself graciously helps vulnerable persons in need every day.