New York Landlord Tenant Lawyer and Cell Site Attorney

New York Commercial Landlord-Tenant Litigation:

Attorneys Marc Rapaport and Meredith Miller represent the nation’s largest wireless communication providers in landlord-tenant disputes involving cell sites in New York. When rooftop cell sites are in jeopardy, we obtain emergency court orders from federal and state courts, including Yellowstone Injunctions. We are effective because we have a thorough understanding of the telecommunications industry, plus decades of New York landlord-tenant experience.

Our New York landlord-tenant dispute lawyers have particular expertise in protecting the legal rights of commercial tenants against abusive cooperative boards, condo boards, and landlords in the five boroughs of New York City. We have the experience, legal skills, and tenacity to bring New York City landlords and boards to their knees. Recently, we protected the long-term commercial leasehold interest of a national telecommunications provider by obtaining a temporary restraining order that stopped a landlord in Flushing, Queens from carrying out its threat to demolish a building where our client operates a cell tower. Our commercial litigators know how to effectively litigate lawsuits against landlords in New York City.

We Get Results:
  • DiFabio v. Omnipoint Communications, Inc., 66 A.D.3d 635, 887 N.Y.S.2d 168 (2nd Dep’t 2009). In this case, condominium owners filed a lawsuit attempting to stop Rapaport Law Firm’s client from constructing a rooftop antenna facility at a residential condominium in Scarsdale, New York. The trial court and appellate court ruled in favor of our client, finding that the plaintiffs failed to meet the requirements for injunctive relief.
  • Crespo v. T-Mobile USA, Inc. and Verizon Communications, Inc., 910 N.Y.S.2d 761, 2010 WL 1741112 (N.Y. Sup. App. Term, April 30, 2010). The appellate court issued a resounding victory for Rapaport Law Firm’s client. The plaintiff in this case sought to hold our client liable for alleged conversion of electrical service. The court dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint, holding that our client was not a tenant of the building, and thus it could not be held responsible for the plaintiff’s alleged damages.
arrow-up